Request concerning Passionless[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Broccolo (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Passionless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Discretionary sanctions

Violation of npov, incivility, battleground behavior.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. [1] "It seems like you and HJ Mitchell are in bed together" (assumption of a bad faith, incivility)
2. [2] "Your strong bias is obvious, and that bleeds heavily into the article which is why the tags are required." (incivility)
3. [3] tagging the article with "Unencyclopedic" and "Unbalanced" tags in spite at least the three editors have agreed the article has no such problems. The edit summary was "adding tags, how about you try and work with me instead of against this time"
4. [4] files spurious report on her blocking administrator.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. [5] Warning by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. [6] Warning by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. [7] Warning by Dayewalker (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

topic ban on I/P conflict related articles and the articles about U.S. military

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On March 7, 2011 user:Passionless was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and inserting POV to article Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen.Examples of their POV are: first example "American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of Afghans have been killed"; second example "During the occupation of Iraq, approximately 150 Iraqi children illegally are sold to foreigners each year for the purpose of adoption, sexual exploitation and servitude. "

• During their block user:Passionless continuously demonstrated battleground behavior and threatened their blocking administator, and the community (one example) "Fuck, looks like you admins leave me no choice and are trying to force my hand."

• Their first edit after the block expired was tagging the article with "Unencyclopedic" and "Unbalanced" tags. They did it in spite that at least 3 editors excluding her blocking administrator have agreed that the POV they added before their block should be removed.

• user:Passionless filed AN/I report about their blocking administrator. When their AN/I thread was closed as non actionable, they came to another user talk page to continue their fight.

• One more threat during their block "Ya, seems like the cabal really enjoys harassing me these last two weeks, might have to take action if it continues. " When asked what actions they are talking about the user jokingly responded I was going to say probably go cry to Jimbo that admins keep blocking me even though I have never broken any policies, but Busygoods does raise a good idea, lol. They are referring to this post by vandal Busygoods "She is an Arab, so it would most likely involve some sort of suicide bombing or terrorist attack". Jokes about "suicide bombing or terrorist attack" are not funny.

• In spite of being asked by many users to let it go the user replaced the content of their user and talk page with "Can someone please show me the diffs of me edit warring, for which I was blocked and accused of by many editors, at Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen?')" [8]; [9]

• On February 20, 2011 user:Passionless was topic banned for three months from editing any article relating to Palestine-Israel. but for some reason the sanctions were reduced. It probably was a mistake.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff link

Discussion concerning Passionless[edit]

Statement by Passionless[edit]

This will take awhile, but I will begin,

@ Jimbo, These are the two sections which I was sourcing which are related to the adoption of ala'a Eddeen. "When a French NGO named Arche de Zoe [1] [2] attempted to airlift children from Chad for adoption in France, Ann Veneman, Executive Director of UNICEF, stated: “It is unacceptable to see children taken out of their home countries without compliance with national and international laws.” Actually, it is unacceptable to take children out of their homelands with or without laws. Foreign adoption and child trafficking in Iraq was unheard of before the 2003 war and occupation. Iraqis fear that children are being trafficked for sex employment and organ transplant market. This is highly possible in light of the fact that an interior ministry official, Hassan Alaa, has reported to Al-Jazeera, that “government forces have captured 15 human trafficking gangs.”[3]" and "This statement denotes that foreign adoption, nevermind child trafficking, as a result of Iraqi law, has been irrelevent practices to citizens of the USA. But from the history of US presence in Iraq since 2003, we can be certain that respect for Iraqis and Iraqi law by the US is non-existing. Despite the published statement on US Embassy’s website, there have been exceptions for USA military personnel. According to an article (dated December 2007) by FOXNews.com [10], Captain Scott Southworth was able to obtain custody of an Iraqi handicapped boy despite being unmarried! The article was pervaded with propaganda and patronage. This involvement by the military reminds us of France’s case when NGO Arche de Zoe’s members “were granted access to French military aircraft and facilities in Chad” to help airlifting African children into France, a case that luckily did not succeed and the children were not airlifted."

These two paragraphs contain the essence of the criticism section. While the article does not mention the adoptee by name, it does mention the adopter by name and the nationality and disability of the adoptee, with a link to an article about the adoption, in which Ala'a is named 40 times. I knew the source was not the best, though I believed it to be above an SPS, but I only speak english, and my search engines are highly biased towards western sources which rarely go against themselves, so after hours more of searching that was the best I found in english. Passionless -Talk 21:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ All, yes I can be slightly uncivil (obviously mad in writting, yet no personal attacks) while I am being what I perceive to be unjustly blocked.

Comment by Gatoclass[edit]

Per T. Canens, this case is out of process since the edits in question do not fall under the domain of ARBPIA. Gatoclass (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Passionless[edit]

• My interactions with Passionless have left me with an acutely dim view of him. But I have only interacted with him in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, and only in the context of attempts to topic-ban him; in such situations, users are expected to be irate or discourteous. That said, his ongoing feud with Mbz1 leads me to think that we ought to ban them both from interacting with one another. I also agree with the filing party that conduct such as that in Passionless' comment here is unacceptable. I am for now abstaining from actioning this complaint; I have sanctioned Passionless previously and been active in some recent AE and other threads relating to him, and would prefer that a fresh perspective take the final decision here. AGK [•] 19:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• While I agree with AGK on his assessment of the edits at issue, I'm not sure that they can be dealt with under ARBPIA. Perhaps a community-based restriction would be more appropriate? T. Canens (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I just wanted to offer a quick analysis of the edit that led to this argument. Passionless characterized this as "Do not remove relevant sourced information that breaks no policy." But it is very important to note that the first "source" doesn't even mention Ala'a Eddeen at all. Indeed, according to google, the word "Eddeen" does not appear at the entire website of the alleged source at all. (There is a brief mention of the case, but no substantive remarks.) The other sources are even worse, as they are about entirely unrelated events and are used to implicitly allege (in a BLP context) that the child was sold, used for sexual exploitation, etc. This is outrageous conduct. While it may be possible to argue that well-sourced criticism of this adoption should be included, it is difficult to characterize this sourcing as anything remotely close to that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Passionless[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

HJ Mitchell has blocked Passionless indefinitely. Therefore, this request is now moot. T. Canens (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Gnevin[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Mooretwin (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gnevin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES#Final remedies for AE case

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. [10] First revert
2. [11] Second revert - breaches 1RR and thereby the Arbcom remedy
3. [12] First revert
4. [13] Second revert - breaches 1RR again and thereby the Arbcom remedy for the second time

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. [14] Warning by mooretwin (talk · contribs)
2. [15] Warning by mooretwin (talk · contribs)
3. [16] Warning by mooretwin (talk · contribs)
4. [17] Warning by mooretwin (talk · contribs)
5. [18] Warning by mooretwin (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Content for others to decide

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The Arbcom remedy applies to "All articles related to The Troubles", which is defined as "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". The GAA article, and the edits in question relate directly to Irish nationalism and indirectly to the Troubles.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Discussion concerning Gnevin[edit]

Statement by Gnevin[edit]

The stretch to include the GAA in the scope of the trouble arb com is ridiculous this is a sporting article not a troubles or Irish nationalism article, anyway I undid the edits are requested by the user Gnevin (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Gnevin[edit]

I would like to withdraw this request as Gnevin has now self-reverted. Mooretwin (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gnevin[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Request concerning NickOrnstein[edit]

User requesting enforcement

David in DC (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

NickOrnstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Enforcement of discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. [20] I delete citation to "source" which fails WP:RS and is explicitly prohibited by WOP WikiProject Notability and sourcing guidance.
2. [21] I'm reverted, with "Other must agree" edit summary
3. [22] The next day, given that this is info about a living person, I try again, with explanatory edit summary: "Reply to edit summary in reversion. Others do agree. It's explicit in WOP WikiProject Notability and Sourcing Guidance. If you wish to generate a new consensus, please start that process on the WikiProject talk page. Please don't ignore."
4. [23] I add reliable sources for Jan Goosenaerts, taken directly from subject's page. I leave the other two items on the list without sources. I resolve, to myself, to look for sources for them Not as easy to find, since they have no articles.
5. [24] I discover one Jan G. source is a dead link, and mark it so, indicating I'll do the same on the JG article after I review the other links.
6. [25] I mark deadlink on JG page
7. [26] Nick reverts me again. No edit summary.
8. [27] I request Nick stop edit-warring, on the article's talk page.
9. [28] I make the same request on Nick's talk page.
10. [29] I start this thread, at AN/I. RodhullandEmu tells me I'm in the wrong place. So does Resident Anthropologist, directing me here and marking the thread "deferred"
11. [30] Before I see advice from R&E and Deferral with direction here from RA, I notify Nick of AN/I thread.
12. [31] This series of edits reflect wiki-stalking in realtime. When I realized Nick was going behind me, nearly minute by minute, reverting what I was doing (deleting citations to the WOP Yahoo group and Louis Epstein's Oldest Human beings list, with the customary zero edit summaries) I stopped. But I'm now convinced a more serious sanction than first proposed is in order.
13. [32] Still more edit-warring.

1. [33] Similar pattern, slightly earlier, on another longevity page. I delete OHB list with edit summary: "Not a reliable source, per WOP WikiProject notability and sourcing guidance and, more importantly WP:RS. The page disclaims its own accuaracy and sells books before getting to its 1st entry."
2. [34] Nick reverts. Edit summary: "Others must agree." I leave it alone. Then, the pattern repeats as related above and I decide it's time to get Admins involved.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warnings explicit in ArbCom case and implicit in my diffs above. Also

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Admonition, with promise of increasingly strict enforcement for subsequent edit-warring. Two week block, followed by one month topic ban. Impositions of increasingly strict blocks and bans for repeated violations therafter. I'm not yet prepared to conclude Nick's incorrigible, but he's makin' it awful hard to maintain that stance.David in DC (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think Nick's approach to collaboration and consensus building is best viewed by looking through his edit history. Most edits are made without summaries at all. Others give a topic-banned editor's name, after the ban, as authority for edits. Others are simply dismissive of others' views. In a contemporaneous MfD discussion about a project subpage I have proposed be deleted or userfied (a page CalvinTy and I have been improving despite my view that it's out-of-bounds,) Nick offered this contribution to the discussion.

[39] Explicit refusal to follow the rules and the ArbCom decision

Reply to EJ: Combine: "The majority of Wiki editors would agree that these new "rules" are ridiculous. I am getting support from many others. I, along with others, have survived Bulten's reign. Bulten tried the same thing, removing WOP citations. But he failed, and got banned for one year." with these diffs, wikistalking and reverting my edits, in realtime, and I can't see how they add up to anything but an explicit refusal to follow the rules: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. David in DC (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here, Nick reverted my edit with a jaw-dropping edit summary. User:Amatulic reverted Nick's reversion. Amatulic has indicated that he is acting as an admin on these pages, to enforce the ArbCom decision. As of earlier today, Nick is still making edits Amatulic is having to revert to enforce the ArbCom decision. David in DC (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is truly distressing. I'm grateful to IMJ for unearthing it, but it will cause me genuine fear, for some time to come. I think it needs to be considered, with great care, by whoever closes this AE request.

Ummmmm, topic-ban violation?

I concur with EJ's proposed result, including his proposed amendment, per Amatulic. David in DC (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [47] David in DC (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning NickOrnstein[edit]

Statement by NickOrnstein[edit]

Frankly, I have not replied to a lot of "wars". It seems pointless replying back on List of disputed supercentenarian claimants, or anywhere of that matter, due to these battles lasting for months (since about October). I have not agreed with removing WOP sources (except from List of oldest living people by nation as of today), many correspondents are on the WOP. There are loads worth of articles with links on that site. So much important information is on the WOP. The group itself is almost as old as Wikipedia. World's Oldest People group is on Longevity claims, along with several other articles. The group is also a backup incase a link becomes dead.

I haven't even bothered to read every little detail regarding the ongoing battles of Bulten vs. Young in the past, especially the fight over the WOP being "reliable". I am going to continue keeping WOP sources, unless there is a source on the internet that is reliable and can replace it. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are still surviving on some of the articles, some twitter and facebook links were on List of living supercentenarians for months. WOP deserves to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickOrnstein (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, I will put forward an attempt to reply with "wars" and edits.

See my edit here [48], if it shines any light on you guys. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Nick... I am not sure what you mean by "I will put forward an attempt to reply with "wars" and edits." It reads (to me) like you are saying that you are refusing to discuss the issue on talk pages, and will instead respond by continuing to edit war. Was this your intent? Please clarify. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I can't edit any more on disputed claimants. The war is over. I fought till the end. I will never support what dave, jude, or any other person says about deleting this article, along with WOP being unreliable. These sources have been used here ever since I came since I began my interests in longevity on Wikipedia in early August 2008. Probably even years before that. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This battleground mentality, in this case literally, is a large part of the reason why there's an active AE thread against you. You've been pointed to several places explaining why we're no longer using these sources the same way; none of us want to drag you through this, but you've got to start working with us, not against us. We're all supposed to be striving towards the same goal- building an encyclopedia- and all you need to do is recognize that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning NickOrnstein[edit]

My only concern with NickOrnstein is his apparent inability to provide a rationale for his position other than a brief comment here and there as well as his inability to collaborate with other editors as he appears to have the view of "the other editor is wrong, therefore, I will be bold and revert without further comment or explanation". He has not justified why he reverted my attempts to add references to the WikiProject's World's Oldest People's Future supercentenarians subpage in the section I made to elicit a response from NickOrnstein. He has not made a response to date, and he is fully aware of David in DC and my efforts to add citations to the future supercentenarians subpage. So I feel that, at least, NickOrnstein should be warned to be more cooperative & collaborative, than to be bold all the time. Cheers, CalvinTy 18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Melissa.vp198[edit]

I'd like to get clarification one one thing, if I may. Am I to understand that the RSN [[49]] page is concerned with the reliability of the GRG only and not the Louis Epstein pages, which I believe is what many of these edit disagreements are about? If so, should it be considered there as well? Epstein verifies cases in a very similar way to the GRG, although granted his work his barely ever cited in news reports etc. Maybe someone could give me a brief rationale as to why this is explicitly not a reliable source (ie not covered by the RSN page, where consensus seems to be leaning towards thinking the GRG is a reliable source)? In terms of NickOrnstein and his editing approach explicitly, from observation I would say he does need to try and be more collaborative. --Melissa.vp198 (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Itsmejudith[edit]

Since the Arbcom finished, Ryoung122 has continued to manipulate a number of editors as meatpuppets in this area. I cannot currently add the links because they are blocked by the spam filter, but they are found easily by Googling for "110 Club Wikipedia". The editors colluding include, but may not be limited to, User:Brendanology, User:Melissa.vp198, User:NickOrnstein, User:DerbyCountyinNZ, User:Cam46136, and User:CalvinTy. This is probably the most blatant case of off-wiki collusion ever. Please take the time to review the pages you will find, which contain numerous personal attacks on editors, and discussion of tactics to subvert the ArbCom decision and continue to push points of view on Wikipedia. Ryoung122's topic ban must be converted into a general indefinite ban, and the meatpuppets should also be banned. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Itsmejudith, shame on you for making FALSE accusations AGAIN. FACT: I first met Brendanology on Wikipedia...he is not someone I ever met personally and not someone I "recruited." So he can't be a "meatpuppet," who is by definition a newbie someone brings to Wikipedia in order to get them to help with "i-votes." FACT: I first met Nick Ornstein on Wikipedia...he is not somone I ever met personally and not someone I "recruited." I challenge you to do your research before making accusations. Question: how long have these two been on Wikipedia? Over a year? Over two years? Clearly not meatpuppets. That's what I thought.

Further: I am a real person, everyone knows who Robert Young is. No one knows who Itsmejudith is, that's a fake ID. So it's a lot easier for you to claim that I have a connection simply because everyone knows who I am.

Things need to calm down..please. Take a step back, and reconsider what you said and whether it was the right thing to do, or not.Ryoung122 03:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Itsmejudith, since you are accusing me as a meatpuppet, I should note that I am not a new user and have had a Wikipedia account since 2006. I am only more active in last few days to help assist with the WikiProject subpage and with the position that GRG is a reliable source on my own accord. The recommendation for us to be banned because we also talked about this discussion in a non-Wikipedia space is akin for me to recommend that you are banned for attacking me here. Regards, CalvinTy 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am quite cognizant of what I say in any space on the Internet, and I have not made any personal attack on any Wikipedia editor. We are not subverting any ArbCom decision at all. Rather, we are trying to make sure that we understand everyone's point of view and how to defend the case that GRG is a reliable source among other points to defend. Please cease and desist in quoting things out of context. To repeat, I have neither made any personal attacks anywhere on any Wikipedia editor nor I have attempted to "subvert the ArbCom decision". I pride myself in being neutral and trying to understand various point of views, including yours, David in DC, A Quest for Knowledge, and all others. What you are doing here is extremely upsetting. You should consider retracting your comment, please. Thank you, CalvinTy 18:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, as I'm an administrator on The 110 Club, I do not believe that DerbyCountyinNZ is a member of our forum so I'm not sure if this is a case of mistaken identity by Itsmejudith. I'll advise DerbyCountyinNZ on his talk page on this comment made by Itsmejudith. CalvinTy 18:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back to the discussions on your website, I see that DerbyCountyinNZ is regarded as a sympathetic outsider and is not a member of the group, so I do retract that one. I note also that NickOrnstein, who self-identifies as a teenager, was insulted on your website for apparently taking too soft a line in the ArbCom. There have been disparaging comments made about David in DC, and in my own case there was a suggestion that someone "lived near" me, i.e. they might attempt to out me or contact me directly (rather than through wiki-enabled email, which would be acceptable). There have been calls for particular kinds of editing to try and get round the ArbCom restrictions. In your case, perhaps you are one of the manipulators rather than the manipulated. Whatever the case, this kind of collusion is utterly unacceptable and I reiterate my request for bans of those involved. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, itsmejudith, "The 110 Club" forum is not my website. I am just a forum member who became an administrator last year by consensus over there. I'm not responsible for what other members have said in public. I can only advise them not to attack any person directly anywhere including Wikipedia, which I have just done so here: z3.invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=1781&view=findpost&p=2785827. If someone else has insulted NickOrnstein for taking too soft a line in the ArbCom, I can only scold the person on the forum. (Please note that I was not active during the ArbCom as I'm extremely busy with a family of 4 girls, three of them under the age of 2 -- twin girls and newborn girl). I obviously shouldn't provide my opinion on your comment of the collusions since I'm a biased party but I am only concerned that you are taking off-wiki discussions as "collusions", and "therefore, those actions merit a Wikipedia ban".

Regarding myself, can you kindly support your case that I may be a manipulator rather than being manipulated? I feel that I am here on my own accord in my own beliefs, and that I have not recommended anyone to do something specific on Wikipedia other than updating the forum members of the ongoing discussions (and expressing my opinions). Whether RYoung122 have attempted to encourage editors to do something on Wikipedia, which may be considered by some as collusion such as yourself, I cannot answer that because RYoung122 is also an administrator at the website as well. So I cannot discipline RYoung122 for his actions on the forum, only the founder of the forum can do so. Hope this helps clarify some things. Thanks, CalvinTy 19:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Meatpuppet "When several like-minded editors hold a discussion outside of Wikipedia about an on-going dispute within Wikipedia, with the purpose of swaying the consensus". The 110 Club was doing exactly that before, during and after the ArbCom case. You were fully involved, so were the other editors I've mentioned above, except for DerbyCountyinNZ. It is not allowed, you knew it was not allowed, you just didn't know that your discussions could so easily be found. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is going off-tangent from the original request here, Itsmejudith. I have looked at WP:Meatpuppet, and I did not see that quote: "When several like-minded editors hold a discussion outside of Wikipedia about an on-going dispute within Wikipedia". Are you making up quotes, Itsmedjudith? In any case, to actually quote WP:Meatpuppet, "Meatpuppetry is the use of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is prohibited." None of the editors in question were new editors. Some editors simply took the initiative on The 110 Club to discuss and defend points to other EXISTING Wikipedia editors so that the other existing editors could chime in with their OWN opinion -- not to sway consensus -- because they still presented their own point of view just as I have done myself independently regardless of what point of views (and opinions) RYoung122 and other editors may have. Please do not make assumptions where none exists, itsmejudith. You still have not stated a guideline that says what The 110 Club is doing "is not allowed" so how can we presume to know that what we are doing before, during, and after the ArbCom case "is not allowed"? I believe none of us are of belief that our discussions "would not be so easily be found". RYoung122 fully knew that eyes from Wikipedia would be monitoring The 110 Club, and I do see that The 110 Club has been mentioned in several ArbCom cases over the years. So please stop making assumptions that "we just didn't know that our discussions could be easily be found". Are you here only to argue for the sake of arguing, itsmejudith? It appears that way, and this is my last comment here on this matter because this is WAY off-tangent. Cheers, CalvinTy 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I regard it as highly offensive to suggest that I have had any offline collusion with any members of the 110 club, whose very existence I was unaware of until being notified of this totally unfounded accusation. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, DerbyCountyinNZ, that was an error on my part, and there is no accusation of meatpuppetry against you. The rest of it is obviously completely against all our rules and action needs to be taken immediately. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since an uninvolved administrator, EdJohnston, has chimed in regarding the meatpuppetry discussion -- I am guessing that the tangent issue of meatpuppetry that itsmejudith have accused several people, including myself, as a valid subject to continue talking about here. In that case, I evidently will continue to defend my own position vigorously that I did not collude with any members of The 110 Club to sway them into consensus on any article disputes. Heck, in fact, if anyone would check my contribs, they can see that I was mostly a lurker on Wikipedia since 2006 with minor edits here and there starting in 2009 up to 21 Feb 2011. Then, on 25 Feb 2011, I began to learn more about how Wikipedia works with guidelines and policies and have been quite active since 25 Feb 2011 (60 contribs since then). I have not been part of any past article disputes or even on the most recent ArbCom decision that was handed out on 17 Feb 2011. The current ones where I have provided comments on are the one at RSN about GRG, and the MfD about the potential deletion of the subpage on one of the WikiProject WOP pages, as well as this AE case here. Again, I cannot defend or vouch for any other editors who are also members on The 110 Club forum as I would have to rescue myself since I'm a forum administrator on the forum & I'm not liable for what members say in a public forum.

EdJohnston, my frustration that is showing here is because some people has a habit of making generalizations, or taking things out of context, or simply state their opinion as facts. Here, itsmejudith, she says, "The rest of it is obviously completely against all our rules and action needs to be taken immediately." As you can see, I already have read about WP:Meatpuppetry and could not find something to justify itsmejudith's position that The 110 Club forum members have "completely broken all our rules" and that "the 110 Club was doing exactly that before, during and after the ArbCom case. You were fully involved, so were the other editors I've mentioned above, except for DerbyCountyinNZ. It is not allowed, you knew it was not allowed, you just didn't know that your discussions could so easily be found." She stated things as fact when that cannot be the case if we don't even know what we are in violation of (and I'm ignoring the part where she said I was fully involved in the ArbCom case when I was nowhere in the picture). Just having an off-site discussion about Wikipedia disputes does not in and of itself constitutes a sufficient level of collusion in regards to swaying the consensus in article disputes. Note that I'm using words similar to the ArbCom's Finding of Facts #3, which I quote here: "Membership in or affiliation with the Gerontology Research Group, or any other group named in the evidence to this case, does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics." In my honest opinion, I believe that every editor here (those who are also a member of The 110 Club forum) have made their point of views or opinions on their own accord and that nobody at The 110 Club explicitly told any particular editor "what to say" or "what to do" to influence decisions & disputes on Wikipedia. Sure, we expressed our own opinions, and I think that's where it may have upset itsmejudith where she saw some opinions by some members on the forum talking in a negative sense about some editors here (such as "what he said was silly and unnecessary"). I can be a motormouth just like I am in person, so I'll stop for now.  :-) Sorry for the long comment, EdJohnston. I hope you are able to see the whole picture here. Thanks, CalvinTy 05:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(To EdJohnston). The dispute is everything related to the Longevity suite of articles that were the subject of the ArbCom case. This behaviour goes back years. If you look at how the Wikiproject World's Oldest People was originally established, you can see that the editors then regarded it as a closed cabal and an extension of their groups on Yahoo! and elsewhere. One of the "gerontology" "experts", Louis Epstein, left the encyclopedia early on after arguing vigorously that he had the right not to put a space after a full stop or comma - norms were not quite so settled then, and Epstein's efforts in tracking oldest people seem to be in competition with the GRG group. Epstein continues to make swipes against Wikipedia. Ryoung122 was indefinitely blocked and then was allowed back. The ArbCom case concentrated on his behaviour after his return and has led to his indefinite topic-ban. It's clear that the editors are carrying on in exactly the same way, i.e. insisting that Wikipedia be an extension of their online forums. I couldn't post the links because their 110 Club forum is a blacklisted site, and now if they have protected the pages we might perhaps be able to get them through the Wayback machine or something? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just the Google search results show you that this forum was used to discuss, and try and influence, Wikipedia disputes. [50] You can see that the group discussed post ArbCom tactics, that Ryoung122 urged another editor to challenge actions by me and David in DC, that during the ArbCom they were ganging up on User:JJBulten. And in this Google search we see a thread entitled "David in DC attacks, where is everyone?". Absolutely blatant. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we can add User:Pascar to the list. S/he just reverted me when I removed material related to living people sourced only to Louis Epstein's recordholders.org website. Has been operating as a longevity-records SPA since 2009, before that there were a few edits to Italy and Italian language articles. Also part of conversations on 110 Club, as recently as 16 Feb this year. [51]. Of course, ArbCom's ruling that membership of a longevity interest group does not per se indicate a conflict of interest does not mean that you can use those interest groups to influence Wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Young and I have differing opinions on many things: certainly in terms of wikipedia. Surprisingly, I have my own mind...so does CalvinTy. I think Robert Young should back off from the oldest people pages of wikipedia completely, if not the whole site. In fact, seeing as you've been scanning the 110 club forum for evidence, you'll already know this. That fact that there are a group of people who want the oldest people pages to sustain/improve/grow is self evident. Your issue is with Robert Young and not those independently-minded individuals who choose to add their voice to any debate here.--Melissa.vp198 (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good observation, Melissa. It appears that long-standing editors like Itsmejudith and David in DC (as well as the banned JJB) seem to have various issues with RYoung122 "over the years". It's very true that The 110 Club has been used as a discussion place for the forum members to talk about Wikipedia issues. After all, that forum is about members with like interests in longevity. Naturally, Wikipedia longevity articles are a major source of discussions. That, by itself, is not a violation of any guideline that I know of? Being a forum administrator there, I have seen a lot of discussions and a lot of opinions shared, sure, but since I was not active on Wikipedia, I couldn't know whether Person A was "deliberating canvassing" Person B or not. As far as I could see in recent days that I have been active here, everyone has voiced his or her comments on their own accord, just as Melissa here has done so. Nobody told me to make a comment at all, and I'm certain Melissa will say the same thing that nobody made her to comment, too. I would imagine that it would be a key "test" to confirm that WP:CANVASS has taken place. Thank you, SirFozzie, for the WP:CANVASS guideline because as I have said before, I did take a gander at WP:MEATPUPPET and I couldn't find anything to justify itsmejudith's position. At WP:CANVASS, it was a clearer guideline about what is inappropriate and appropriate on Wikipedia. The only section that could be applicable was the "stealth canvassing" paragraph. However, that only refers to editors trying to contact other editors off-Wiki to canvass or made others aware of a dispute going on. Stealth canvassing cannot apply to a public forum where members are just expressing their opinions or discussing their own point of views on the forum. To answer SirFozzie's comment on my talk page here, if a particular forum member is rallying the troops by making other forum members aware of an action or dispute going on, I don't know if that's canvassing. I feel that canvassing only means that if that member intentionally tells "you troop members have to disagree with that action on Wikipedia". While a statement of "know what? Editor A on Wikipedia has done this action and I disagree with it, so if you agree with me, I suggest you go over there and state your case." Is that really canvassing, SirFozzie? Like I said, I was not active until recently so I can't be guilty like itsmejudith has blatantly suggested that I be banned for canvassing or meatpuppetry. SirFozzie, that's why I am defending my position vigorously. Appreciate your time (and everyone's else) time in reading my long-winded comments!  :-) Cheers, CalvinTy 18:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by O Fenian[edit]

I was tangentially involved in a dispute or two leading up to the arbitration case, and I see little has changed. Over 20 hours after being notified of the thread here, and without having replied, he is making edits such as this which restores commented out information with no explanation. The information is sourced to messages in a Yahoo group, which is wholly unacceptable sourcing particularly if the people are still alive as some of them are.

I would suggest something needs to be done about this. O Fenian (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I believe the relevance is in relation to remedy #4. The general consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Oldest people, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of disputed supercentenarian claimants and Talk:List of disputed supercentenarian claimants#Notability is that the Worlds Oldest People Yahoo Group (the WOP referred to in the diff) is not a reliable source, in particular for claims that a living person is lying about their age. The new "rules" would be the implementation of remedy #4, since experienced uninvolved editors are not happy about WOP and similar sources being used on the articles in question. O Fenian (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, despite this detailed message about the use of WOP, and the edit summary clearly linking to the reliable sources noticeboard on the left of the following diff, this edit was made earlier today. Given that three days later he has not even bothered to reply here and has carried on the disputed behaviour despite warnings and discussions saying the source is not reliable, it would appear his intentions are clear and that stern measures are needeed. O Fenian (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More edit warring to add back WOP without any attempt at discussion. O Fenian (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More edit warring to add back WOP (in some cases other sources are added too, but in the cases of the people from Finland WOP is the only source added) while ignoring all previous discussions and in particular Talk:List of oldest living people by nation#Using Yahoo groups as a citation. Also this which adds a cite to WOP. O Fenian (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CalvinTy[edit]

SirFozzie, I just saw your comment. Be careful for jumping into conclusions with your comment, "Unfortunately, the admins at the 110 Club have removed all the threads from the forum they were in (either moving them to a read only/members only forum, or deleting them). One could say that this is them either realizing what they're doing is not allowed, or taking it private, and we won't be able to tell. I'd say it's pretty damming however." As a matter of fact, the founder of the forum (who -- to the best of my knowledge -- has no Wikipedia account and definitely has no hand in all of this disputes going on) approved, ironically today, the recommendation that topics which made predictions of which supercentenarians may live or die within xx number of months were not appropriate for public view, and topics that covers debates or opinions that members would not want the public to be aware of were also not appropriate for public view, as well as topics in where other members or administrators would admonish other member for their mistakes (such as insulting another member) and where the administrators did not want to split or delete the whole topic so all those topics were moved to a private section of the forum. This is out of respect for our forum members as well as everyone on the Internet as well. SirFozzie, please feel free to ask me any more questions but please do not jump into conclusions like that. Much appreciated. Cheers, CalvinTy 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add a little bit to what I said last night above, The 110 Club have had a history of "too much transparency" as a public forum and several members including myself had been concerned about some topics & posts where someone made predictions of which people on the Top Ten living supercentenarians would be still living in 6 months, for example, and several people had felt that was not appropriate for public view. What if a family member of a living supercentenarian saw that prediction about their grandmother "not living in 6 months"? Yikes. Since we as a whole have done a lot of research of potential supercentenarians, The 110 Club usually comes on somewhere on the first page in Google search results if you were to google a current living supercentenarian (based on GRG Table E). At the same time, the forum are mainly composed of young people aged 15-25 (I'm not in that age bracket, grins), so there were a lot of instances where administrators had to admonish them for their behavior in middle of relevant & important topics. Deleting the whole topic or splitting specific posts into a new separate topic usually would lose the context of the topic so we just moved them to the "Lounge", an off-topic area, but still in public view (since the entire forum was public anyway). As for Wikipedia, it's the same principle in where we don't want someone from here to get upset when he or she sees a forum member saying, "my goodness, she on Wikipedia does not know what she is talking about". That's why we have had tried to get those topics moved to a private section for a long time. Ironically, the founder approved the recommendation to move 3 areas (predictions, debates, and members) yesterday in midst of this Wikipedia debate on meatpuppetry & canvassing. So I hope that this current changes will help alleviate the hostility that itsmejudith and others appear to have for particular members of that forum who are also Wikipedia editors. For me, I knew that The 110 Club forum is cached in Google searches, and that they may appear in the Wayback machine like itsmejudith said. All I am asking is that we are trying to make changes on the forum for the better. So I don't know if it's worth anybody's time to seek out old topics and find proof of possible canvassing by a particular forum/Wikipedia member. If itsmejudith wants to do that, I will respect her decision but I cannot be a party to it because I am a forum administrator so there is COI so I cannot help with evidence by moving topics back to public view (and that would go against the founder's wishes). I just feel that I pride in being neutral and listen to all sides as well as being professional, civil, and not prone to outbursts, but I was taken aback by itsmejudith attacking me that "I was fully involved.... in breaking all our rules" when that couldn't have been the case. Itsmejudith has attacked me as the editor, not the content of my comments here on Wikipedia. That's quite upsetting. I am not confident enough to begin a AE request on anyone (plus, I really am not here on Wikipedia to expend my energy aruging with other editors; I want to edit articles and not spend too much time in discussions). Sorry for the long book here! That illustrates my point in previous sentence, LOL! Cheers, CalvinTy 19:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston, thank you for the link to the EEML ArbCom case so I can take a look over there about this to better educate myself about previous precedents on canvassing. I understand your interpretation of canvassing; just that my concern is the last part of the hypothetical sentence: "...so if you agree with me, I suggest you go over there and state your case." That seems to imply that the editor is just notifying other editors about a current event and that the person is being neutral by saying "if you agree with me, then I suggest you go over there and state your opinion". It's not an imperative statement (i.e. an order), correct? Just wondering. In any case, I don't have the time to go over old topics on our forum to see what kind of wording were actually used (and plus, there is the COI issue with myself). I just took a quick look at the EEML ArbCom case, and noticed one apparent erroneous statement by ArbCom unless they meant exactly what they meant: "9) While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as IRC, mailing lists, or web forums) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper." Did they mean to say "generally inappropriate"? Did I just catch a mistake that nobody had yet, eh?  :-) In any case, in good faith, I can only state and defend myself that I did not canvass anyone to the best of my knowledge, and that I only provided my opinions in some of my posts on the forum to those members who were bringing Wikipedia disputes to our attention. Much appreciated, CalvinTy 19:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@To all admins, would it be more appropriate if this RfE focuses solely on the originator's (David in DC) request for a two-week block on NickOrnstein for his failure to collaborate with other editors and persistence in re-introducing Yahoo Groups WOP citations into various articles? Considering that most of us are in agreement that Yahoo Groups WOP is not a reliable source, myself included, I don't see a justification for the assumption that "all of the 110 Club forum members are engaging in coordination efforts (even if some of them could be guilty of canvassing)". If itsmejudith or any other editor (and a non-administrator) decides to make a new RfE case, then that's where the The 110 Club forum members can defend their position, not here. I fully recommend that this "drumhead trial" come to a stop here & focus solely on the original RfE. Thanks, CalvinTy 22:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

Although NickOrnstein has not violated WP:3RR on any article, he has been edit-warring for days to include citatations to Yahoo World's Oldest People Group in multiple articles, including those which involve claims about living people:

• 18:56, March 2, 2011
• 21:29, March 2, 2011
• 21:32, March 2, 2011
• 22:10, March 2, 2011
• 13:34, March 3, 2011
• 20:30, March 3, 2011
• 19:19, March 4, 2011
• 22:51, March 4, 2011
• 12:52, March 5, 2011
• 18:57, March 5, 2011

Since this RfE was filed, NickOrnstein has made over 100 edits[52], and has still not responded to this RfE. I asked NickOrnstein when they planned on responding to this RfE[53] but have not received a response. Since he is apparently unwilling to discuss matters either here or on the relevant talk pages, and he shows no sign of ending his edit-war, he should be blocked until his conduct issues have been resolved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Blueboar[edit]

I have to echo the concerns that others have expressed. I have just had my own brief encounter with Nick on the issue of Yahoo groups, and he definitely seems to want to engage in a revert wars rather than discuss the matter on the talk page. The fact that this is ongoing and crossing over into multiple articles clearly indicates that admin action is needed. He is clearly violating the spirit of 3rr if not the letter. As he refuses to engage on talk pages, the only alternative is to get his attention through a block. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments by Itsmejudith[edit]

Pursuant to a suggestion by EdJohnston, I would like this AE request to be broadened to cover all the members of the 110 Club that have been involved in the recent off-wiki canvassing:

• User: Brendanology
• User: Melissa.vp198
• User: Cam46136
• User: CalvinTy
• User: Ryoung122
• User: Pascar

I am notifying all of those users, plus the following who seem to be members of the group but not involved in recent canvassing:

• User: Bart Versieck
• User: Longevitydude
• User: Plyjacks
• User: SiameseTurtle
• User: Gabe A

The following diffs, currently accessible to me through Google cache, show the pattern:

• [54] Very clear evidence of canvassing, attempt to subvert actions of User:BrownHairedGirl, back in 2008.

• A member advises another how to defend reliability of GRG on RSN, post ArbCom.

• A WP editor accused of suffering from "Stockholm syndrome", contributions to WP judged insufficiently combative.

• A member is recruited to vote in an AfD.

Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, be advised that when I made my further comments below in my section, itsmejudith had originally explicitly named me above as shown in this diff. I appreciate her redaction. Cheers, CalvinTy 16:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to itsmejudith, it was EdJohnston, the admin, who recommended itsmejudith not to use real names. Itsmejudith then took out all names, both real names and Wikipedia names out. Regards, CalvinTy 17:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the defamatory statements, made by Itsmejudith, that I am somehow involved in a conspiracy to subvert the policies of Wikipedia, where is the evidence for such assertions in this accusation. Cam46136 (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Cam46136[reply]

Further comments by CalvinTy[edit]

Itsmejudith, the link you provided regarding RYoung122 advising me (which definitely was not the case) would be exactly what I mean by "just because forum members are talking about a Wikipedia debate in a PUBLIC forum, they are not automatically guilty of canvassing". As you can see in that link, I asked where the request for deletion of the WikiProject subage was made (as RYoung122 stated in the original post). Melissa replied with the correct link. I reviewed the discussions, and I myself had some questions for DerbyCountyinNZ and David in DC. I also felt that I wanted to provide my own input in the RSN as well (keeping in mind that NOBODY asked me to go to the RSN and make any comment). Yes, RYoung122 at the end complimented me for making points logically and maturely. (LOL, he probably knows that is a skill that he needs practice with, and he probably would confess to, heh.) However, at least in my view, RYoung122 was not canvassing us in that particular thread. Looking at WP:CANVASS, the four criteria are (and my justification that no canvassing occurred in THAT particular thread only):

Limited posting: The 110 Club longevity forum has only 50 validated members (20-25 active members) and nobody was "mass-posting" anything in that thread. I imagine that there are at least 10 members that also have a similar Wikipedia account as well.

Neutral: Everyone in that thread was providing information about where everything was being covered. I also posted my thoughts from my edits. Nobody was pleading anyone else to "change something".

Audience: it is not fair to say that the audience is "partisan" because all of the forum members are interested in longevity. Why should it be an automatic strike on us when we are talking about longevity articles on Wikipedia as well as the WikiProject's World's Oldest People -- which many of the same forum members/Wikipedia editors are also a project member? This "small community" cannot be guilty of partisanship "just because we are too closely associated to longevity".

Transparency: we forum members all fully knew that The 110 Club was a public forum, available in Google Cache, so when we were participating in that particular thread, we were transparent about our own opinions and thoughts.

Summary: That particular thread does not meet ANY of the four criteria of canvassing. Like I said earlier, I fear that this has become a ""drumhead trial", clumping up all members of a small longevity forum as "guilty" for canvassing. NOTE: I am not saying that no canvassing has occurred in the past, but I was not active on Wikipedia and was not familiar with the WP:CANVASS so even if I am a forum administrator there, I had no idea whether some members may have been actively canvassing at that time. That's why I would appreciate a separate RfE for any direct evidence of canvassing against any alleged members like what itsmejudith feels that RYoung122 has done so in canvassing, as well as SirFozzie's point of view here.

Expanding this RfE only complicates matters because I fear that NickOrnstein's stubborness reflects poorly on other longevity editors such as myself for no reason. I even admonished him myself, but has anyone here cares that I'm being neutral -- or that doesn't matter -- "because you are a forum administrator over there at The 110 Club so you are a guilty party"? If so, that's disappointing. I really don't want to go through the chain of command, but I feel like I am backed into a corner. If necessary, I will have to request enforcement (however that works, but I fear that I have to escalate this matter to a higher level) against any & all editors and administrators who keep insisting on "clumping up" and "generalizing" all longevity editors together from a small forum with the perception of us being a "bad bunch of people and guilty of violating guidelines" when I'm certain that several of us like myself and Melissa are just expressing our opinions on our own accord and, to the best of our knowledge and faith, we have not violated any guidelines.

Your protests that the 110 Club forum has done nothing wrong aren't helped much by this thread, four days ago, which is just more of the behaviour complained about. I find it so sad to see people wasting their time in this way and creating a battleground when there really doesn't have to be one. And this thread where NickOrnstein wants me and David and DC to be kicked out of a WikiProject. This in itself could be enough for NickOrnstein to be banned (uninvolved admin will decide), but I really think that the atmosphere in the group needs to be taken into account. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was given good advice by a good long-standing editor here that I don't need to defend everything left and right as you see I have done lately. I will try to be more careful about that because I wholeheartedly agree with you that there shouldn't be a battleground at all. We are just passionate about longevity, and yes, some behavior is still an issue such as NickOrnstein refusing to comply with not using WOP links in article mainspace. We can hash that out here with the appropriate sanction, I hope. Regarding the first thread you mentioned, I was saying the same thing about NickOrnstein here that he needs to improve his collaboration with other editors. Then I asked SiameseTurtle for his opinion about being which kind of source GRG is: primary source, reliable source, or self-published source. Then I told you here (and gave you a link, as a matter of fact) that I pleaded everyone NOT to attack any person on Wikipedia. Then the last post was RYoung122 letting us know that Louis Epstein has been published by third-party sources. Like EdJohnston said below, "one could argue there is not enough evidence of on-wiki mischief due to the off-wiki coordination". Exactly what I feel. Last, I have said that I understand that some of previous posts on that forum could be considered canvassing; particularly after I learned about the WP:CANVASS. I am pleading with you that if you feel strongly about the canvassing and/or personal attacks, that's understandable but please direct them to the offending people, not the entire forum. Should SiameseTurtle or AMK or Melissa or I receive a discretionary sanction (@admins, what does that mean, curious?) because we were "part of the same atmosphere" that other forum members may have cultivated? That's all. (Darn, I didn't do a good job of not trying to defend everything... I need more practice.  :-) ) Cheers, CalvinTy 20:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request from Itsmejudith[edit]

Please, as this AE is about to close, could everyone be encouraged to join in discussion on the talk page of the WikiProject? Still called WP:WOP, WikiProject World's Oldest People, but there are suggestions to rename. I have a question there about splitting list articles and would appreciate comments, otherwise I will just go ahead and do it. What wouldn't be good is if there is no discussion, and then I go ahead, and then there is an edit war. Admins, could someone explain to NickOrnstein, per his question below, why I and David in DC are allowed to be in the WikiProject? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting a potential compromise by CalvinTy[edit]

@admins, first, what is a discretionary sanction? Of more concern, why should every member of The 110 Club forum receive one automatically regardless of their level of involvement, if any, in a possible violation of any guidelines (which, to date, is quite debatable and has not been sufficiently proven)?

So, rather, I have a potential compromise here: I think a statement from each forum member voluntarily stating that "We have now reviewed WP:CANVASS and WP:MEATPUPPET guidelines, and we acknowledge not to violate those guidelines, and that we will not take action at the direction of any other Wikipedia editor." would be sufficient? If we make this voluntarily statement, and then one of us violate it, then that's where a sanction or enforcement of a ban of some length would finally be appropriate. Regarding NickOrnstein's actions, if the administrators feel that there is a consensus for him to receive a two-week ban then enforce that. Would that be a good compromise? Regards, CalvinTy 11:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promising never to canvass again would be helpful. I think also further action needs to be taken against Ryoung122. I would recommend that the admins read all the diffs posted. Here, just to give one example, Ryoung122 is clearly using the group to get round his topic ban. He attempts to instruct editors to engage in head on confrontation with me and with and David in DC. He tells them off for trying to reach understanding. By the way, I, and David in DC, who I didn't know at all before wading into this, are just regular, productive WP editors with no axe to grind. Post ArbCom I feel I have a responsibility to help clean up the remains of the walled garden. If you want to discuss how that is done there are plenty of forums, not least the talk page of the the WOP WikiProject. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FACT: As soon as the "topic ban" for me went into effect, David in DC falsely accused me of violating the ban by posting information about the (U.S.) 2010 census on my talk page. Not only was that NOT "assuming good faith," it's evidence of wiki-stalking. And rather than encourage me to do the right thing, it was taunting. David in DC also removed my name from the WikiProject:WOP even though I had been banned "indefinitely" (not necessarily forever). And then David in DC continued to make comments about me on message threads, going so far as to suggest that Nick Ornstein couldn't quote me because I was topic-banned...but what if I appear in the news media, as I tend to do? To suggest that Wikipedia should have any effect on a professional person's reputation as "reliable" is, in fact, a violation of BLP and of NOR.

Wikipedia is not a nation, it's "laws" are not binding. It's a website, and a social experiment gone horribly wrong. Instead of being about consensus and collaboration, it has become a virtual-reality video game, where Wikipedia editors build social networks and gang up on others, establishing who is the most powerful.

How about some FACTS:

FACT: Both David in DC and Itsmejudith have a long laundry list of poor editing decisions, whether it's accusing others of being "meatpuppets" or deleting articles that existed for five-plus years, after canvassing for AFD support with a few regulars (Grismaldo, where are you?...) Here's just a few issues:

1. David in DC mass-canvassed with JJB in November 2010, mass-nominating or i-voting in coordination. That's CANVASSING and as usual, Wiki rules don't seem to apply to certain editors.

2. David in DC, from the beginning, hasn't understood the principle of "recusal" when one is an involved party. As an involved ArbCom person, it was not his job to be "ArbCom enforcer." This is just typical of him mis-using the Wikipedia system.

3. When David in DC accuses certain off-wiki groups of trying to use Wikipedia as a "web host," that is typical B.S. that he should be punished for, but gets away with. The GRG lists exist whether they're copied on Wikipedia or not. No one is off-loading anything. We do see the Wikipedia lists offer a few advantages, such as being able to be updated by anyone, not just a 70-year-old man when he is not busy (Dr. Coles).

4. Itsmejudith's "let's delete everything" ideas certainly don't make Wikipedia a better place.

5. Itsmejudith has coordinated with JJBulten and David in DC to CANVASS to "win" debates.

6. Some of Itsmejudith's merge and delete proposals were so preposterous that even JJB was against them. For example, she wanted to delete Oldest People and Longevity Myths. Many of her proposals might succeed, that doesn't mean the right decision was made. It means she chased anyone away who dared oppose. In fact, the real test of whether an editor is going against consensus is to see how much difference there would be if that person took a week off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disputed_supercentenarian_claimants

Woah, is that David in DC voting again to delete this list? Do you people realize that the purpose of such lists are EDUCATIONAL...i.e., to show the reader, demographically, how common such age claims are. In the same way that kids enjoy lists of home run hitters (but might actually learn math as well), there is a value to these lists that biased, POV-pushing editors like Itsmejudith and David in DC won't or can't see. We already see that David in DC confuses making fun of others as humor...it's not.

7. I might be "topic-banned," but it has been David in DC and Itsmejudith that has prompted me to return to this issue, again.

8. Both David in DC and Itsmejudith continue to talk about me. Get over me. It's NOT about me. It's about YOU TWO pushing against consensus. FACT: I originally opposed Wikipedia list expansion as it would "mirror" GRG lists. Then I realized that the Wikipedia lists were mostly just listed to top-100, whereas the GRG has 1,000+ case lists. So, it's not really accurate to say that the Wikipedia lists were "mirrors."

So (don't laugh), I'm going to propose that Itsmejudith and DavidinDC be simultaneously topic-banned along with anyone else the RFC decides to punish, and start over fresh with neutral third-party editors, not those who had a personal vendetta even before they came across the topic.

Wikipedia claims that bans are not to punish but to make Wikipedia a better place. If Itsmejudith is busy hurling "meatpuppet" accusations without doing research first (just as DerbyNZ, or check the edit histories of Brendanology and even Nick Ornstein), that's detrimental to Wikipedia. If Itsmejudith is deleting articles left and right and David in DC is claiming that list notability is not established even if a source is notable...well, here's an analogy. If MLB.com is a reliable source, NO ONE is going to say that lists of most home runs hit can't be placed on Wikipedia. Yet in effect that's what David in DC has been arguing.

Finally, it was the admin of the admins, Carcharoth, that advised me that off-wiki actions are outside the scope of Wikipedia. And I agree. It's the actions done on Wikipedia that should be punished, from Itsmejudith's "everyone's a meatpuppet" accusations and suggestions that scientific material be banished from religious articles (virgin birth of Jesus) to David in DC's confusing Census 2010 with Census 1910. Because if this is an encyclopedia, then we should want the editing work here to be objective, fair, neutral, and reflective of outside sources, not the personal whims of egotistical nobodys who hide behind fake ID's.

Have a nice day.

Ryoung122 05:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend the following:

• NickOrnstein: 1 or 2 week block for edit-warring and a 6 month ORR or 1RR restriction after the block expires.
• Ryoung122: 48 hour block. Reset of his 1 year topic ban to whenever this RfE is closed.
• Yahoo Oldest People The 110 Club forum members who were canvassed by RYoung122: A simple warning about WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS should suffice.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsmejudith, I have no problem with the "promise never to canvass again" phrase, just that I took that into consideration when I said "acknowledge not to violate those guidelines". I understand the concern about the "walled garden" feeling when it comes to longevity articles. It does make sense that we should continue our dialogue in the talk page of the WOP WikiProject.

@A Quest For Knowledge, forgive me, but I corrected several things in your earlier post (let me know if I'm not supposed to do so) -- a.) spelling, b.) completed the user name, and c.) I believe you did not mean Yahoo Groups WOP group (since it's a private group and no messages are visible to the public), but rather, you meant The 110 Club forum that itsmejudith brought up (regarding the posts there). Regarding your recommendations, I personally have no further objections. Regards, CalvinTy 19:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CalvinTy: I'm fine with your changes to my post, but other editors might get offended. Here's our guidelines: WP:TPO. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request." Definitely will keep that in mind as I had seen it done but I didn't realize that it was likely the editor was striking out his/her comment, not others. My mistake. Thanks, CalvinTy 19:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Wait, I thought Ryoung122 had a one year topic ban. I see now that it's indefinite. Sorry, my bad. My recommendation to reset his topic ban doesn't make sense. I will strike that part out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Ryoung122[edit]

Ed, that is the crux of the issue here. Yahoo groups are generally unreliable, and I agree. However, the WOP group could be described as a "self-published source" by an "expert" (that would be me) or other experts who post messages there, where they must be approved first. In reality, it's a TOOL.

Suppose, for example, Silvo Torkar reported that the oldest woman in Slovenia is still alive at 109, but Wikipedia deleted the case because it was "unsourced". Why not source to Mr. Torkar's statement on the WOP group, which provides and archived record of not just who said it, but the year, month, and day the comment was made. As an "expert" on Slovenian centenarians, it seems reasonable to give someone's message like that to be reliable. That is a practical and sensible argument.

Of course, I don't expect the practical or sensible here. Let's face it: just like the "driving 55mph" rule, it's impossible for all rules to be followed precisely at all times. That was the gist of WP:IAR. It wasn't about anarchy, it was about being able to make common-sense decisions about applying rules appropriately.

An expert's credential are affected by misreporting. If someone's reporting is not generally reliable, they are likely to be "fired." Thus there are lots of incentives to "get it right" the first time.

Again, I tried to do the right thing on Wikipedia, repeatedly. Had I not, I would have been like Louis Epstein, who long ago metaphorically thumbed his nose at the system. Wikipedia has failed to live up to its own rules, allowing power-grabbing editors to carve out metaphorical "witch-hunts" while they ignore the reliable-source material outside Wikipedia that is accepted by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Tokyo Times, Science Magazine, etc.

The reality is that humans are not computers; they are governed by irrationality, not rationality. That is the conclusion one must draw from years of editing on Wikipedia. It has been noted that Wikipedia editors are disproportionately male and under age 30. Thus, it's not surprising that Wikipedia finds high schools, minor college athletes, and fictional TV characters notable, but fails to consider notable material on supercentenarians, even when the mainstream scientific journals and news reports deem it so.

Ryoung122 06:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Refactored by moving from the uninvolved admin's section. Courcelles 06:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning NickOrnstein[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• David in DC argues that NickOrnstein is engaged in 'explicit refusal to follow the rules and the ArbCom decision', offering this diff as evidence. Can anyone explain the significance?
• Regarding meatpuppetry, even if we were to accept that certain editors have been coordinating off-site, can anyone give examples of some article disputes where this set of people acted in concert to sway the decision? EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the admins at the 110 Club have removed all the threads from the forum they were in (either moving them to a read only/members only forum, or deleting them). One could say that this is them either realizing what they're doing is not allowed, or taking it private, and we won't be able to tell. I'd say it's pretty damming however. SirFozzie (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If NickOrnstein continues to link to World's Oldest People against the apparent consensus, won't explain his reverts and won't respond here, I think that may be held against him. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A case for sanctioning NickOrnstein appears to be developing. If others believe that we should also warn the editors who are part of '110 Club Wikipedia' for meatpuppeting, please notify them of this discussion and add a comment in your own section above with a diff of your notice. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• @CalvinTy: "know what? Editor A on Wikipedia has done this action and I disagree with it, so if you agree with me, I suggest you go over there and state your case." Yes, that is canvassing. The fact that it is off-wiki on a forum that is now closed to outsiders makes it worse. See the WP:EEML Arbcom case for a precedent. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:RSN shows a consensus that the Yahoo WOP group is inappropriate to cite. WP:ELNO specifically singles out Yahoo groups as links to avoid. NickOrnstein persists in restoring them when they are deleted, typically without comment or justification. Supposedly those forum messages cited contain their own references to actual reliable sources; if that's the case then those sources need to be cited instead. I have left a rather detailed warning on NickOrnstein's talk page, which went un-heeded. I have left a final warning. Further disruption will result in a block independent of the outcome of this AE report. If there are other WOP members lurking around ready to restore those links, I am prepared to blacklist the Yahoo group. NickOrnsein is otherwise productive, so I recommend that he be banned from adding WOP links but otherwise not banned from his area of interest. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There have also been some discussions of this request at User talk:CalvinTy and at User talk:EdJohnston. In one of these, I suggested that members of the Yahoo WOP group agree to identify themselves as such on Wikipedia, agree to abstain from counted votes on such matters as whether to include WOP links in articles, and agree not to add WOP links to articles themselves. This could be a way for them to avoid sanctions here. If there is no agreement on that, it could be imposed as a discretionary sanction. This would be less draconian than banning those editors from working on longevity completely. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The confused and overlong request does not make clear how the conduct at issue violates any applicable rule, and the confused and overlong discussion is of no help. On this basis, I am not taking any action.  Sandstein  18:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• @Sandstein: The complaint against NickOrnstein looks to be one of conventional long-term edit-warring. The meatpuppet issue is in a gray area, and one could argue there is not enough evidence of on-wiki mischief due to the off-wiki coordination. The arguments of the 110 Club that they are not canvassing seem to misunderstand policy. On the meatpuppet issue, I could imagine that notifying all the club members of the discretionary sanctions might be enough of a response. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this then (speaking as an admin/editor, not as an arb)? Take the action on Nick discussed above, and warn the members of the 110 Club who post on WP of discretionary sanctions, and also remind them that they should not be taking action at the request of Ryoung, who is topic-banned from this area? SirFozzie (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposed Result:

1. Ryoung is reminded of the restriction imposed by Arbcom:

"Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted."

This language prevents him from making off-wiki comments about Wikipedia debates about longevity. He is warned that any further off-wiki canvassing of forum members to participate in AfDs or other debates may result in a block from editing Wikipedia for the remainder of his topic ban.

2. NickOrnstein is banned from the topic of longevity for six months. He may request unbanning at AE or by any of the admins who participated in this thread if he he will promise not to add any links to the World's Oldest People forum or to the 110 Club. He may ask at AE or any of these admins individually to lift this ban if a formal decision is made at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that these are reliable sources to use in longevity articles.

3. The members of any internet forums such as World's Oldest People or the 110 Club are reminded that canvassing is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Any admin who determines that canvassing off-wiki is still going on and is being used to influence our debates may take appropriate action under the discretionary sanctions. All the editors who have been named in this AE as participating in one of these forums may be formally notified of the longevity discretionary sanctions by any admin using the ((uw-sanctions)) or in any other suitable way. Notification does not imply any wrongdoing, but it is official notice that their behavior may be looked at if they seem to be editing so as to favor the use of a specific set of off-wiki sources.

4. Members of off-wiki groups concerned with longevity are advised to announce their off-wiki affiliation should they participate in any counted votes on the topic of longevity, such as AfDs or at WP:RSN.

Please leave your opinion on this proposed result. Leave the comments in your own section; they will all be read. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, why is DC and jude in WikiProject: WOP? I can't get that across my mind. Alright, I will just add the case without the link instead of using WOP or 110 Club. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your offer is that you will now add names with no source at all? How is this progress? EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Broad concurrence, though I'd have gone for a year ban instead of six months. Courcelles 03:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Since this AE case was opened, I have observed NickOrnsteins edits closely. I notice that for the past couple of days (since I issued a final warning), he has clearly refrained from re-adding Yahoo WOP links, and instead has been trying to include other sources in the longevity articles he edits. In view of that, he is already satisfying the unbanning conditions listed in #2 above, so I believe a topic ban is not be necessary; this AE report has served its purpose already. EdJohnston's other proposals seem fine to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• @Amatulic: OK, if Nick has really stopped adding links to Yahoo WOP then the original sanction #2 may not be needed. I suggest replacing it with the following: NickOrnstein is warned not to edit war on longevity articles, or to add references to sources that have been judged at WP:RSN and found wanting. Any admin may impose a 1RR/week restriction on his editing of longevity articles if problems continue. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing[edit]

1. Ryoung is reminded of the restriction imposed by Arbcom:

"Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted."

This language puts in doubt whether he should make off-wiki comments about Wikipedia debates about longevity. (He is prohibited from "commenting on ... any Wikipedia process." ) He is warned that any further off-wiki canvassing of forum members to participate in AfDs or other debates may result in a block from editing Wikipedia for the remainder of his topic ban. If he disagrees with this interpretation of his topic ban, he can open a Request for Clarification with Arbcom. Should he appear before Arbcom again, he is reminded that his rich history of personal attacks against other editors in our WikiProject may be put in evidence.

2. NickOrnstein is warned not to edit war on longevity articles, or to add references to sources that have been judged at WP:RSN and found wanting. Any admin may impose a 1RR/week restriction on his editing of longevity articles if problems continue.

3. The members of any internet forums such as Yahoo World's Oldest People or the 110 Club are reminded that canvassing is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Any admin who determines that canvassing off-wiki is still going on and is being used to influence our debates may take appropriate action under the discretionary sanctions. All the editors who have been named in this AE as participating in one of these forums may be formally notified of the longevity discretionary sanctions by any admin using the ((uw-sanctions)) or in any other suitable way. Notification does not imply any wrongdoing, but it is official notice that their behavior may be looked at if they seem to be editing so as to favor the use of a specific set of off-wiki sources.

4. Members of off-wiki groups concerned with longevity are advised to announce their off-wiki affiliation should they participate in any counted votes on the topic of longevity, such as AfDs or at WP:RSN.

5. Other long-term disputes such as WP:ARBPIA have resulted in more and more people being placed under topic bans. Editors are urged to settle down and follow consensus. If the original dispute addressed by Arbcom continues, more actions here at AE are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

User requesting enforcement

GainLine ♠ _♥ 17:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

remedy 3.1 (topic ban)

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. [66] As per Arbitration, Lapsed Pacifist is topic banned from articles relating to the Corrib Gas Controversy. This article was categorised by LP to be part of this topic. While the diff is of a minor edit to the article, the user has a history of pushing the limits here on Wikipedia.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Enforcement action to be at enforcing administrators discretion.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Lapsed Pacifist has been already sanctioned 3 times under the terms of this arbitration and 5 times under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist. Lapsed Pacifists behaviour has been much improved since their last block, it would be a pity to see them slip into previous negative patterns.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[67]

Discussion concerning Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

Statement by Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• Blocked for 48 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 19:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Doktorbuk[edit]

User requesting enforcement

O Fenian (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Doktorbuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. [68] Revert 1
2. [69] Revert 2, within 24 hours of the first breaching the 1RR restriction

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. [70] Warning by Mo ainm (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have attempted to discuss the matter at Talk:Belfast West by-election, 2011 and received no reply there, despite offering a compromise that took the other editor's point into consideration. I asked the editor to self-revert to avoid this report, and received the simple answer of "No". Any edits relating to Gerry Adams come under the Troubles restriction. O Fenian (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[71]

Discussion concerning Doktorbuk[edit]

Statement by Doktorbuk[edit]

The paragraph in question is below -

"Notwithstanding Gerry Adams' public statement rejecting his new position,[11] the Parliamentary authorities in Westminster have removed him from the list of MPs[12] and the seat of Belfast West is now considered vacant.[13]"

This breaks down into these parts -

• As it is not possible to resign from the House of Commons (Resignation from the British House of Commons), Gerry Adams' letter to the Speaker of the House was not, in and of itself, enough to satisfy the House authorities that he had resigned. It needed more than just this letter, such are the rules.
• Therefore, to ensure that, for all editors and readers of this article, Wikipedia gave a clear overview of the situation, I wrote the above paragraph, which has been untouched since being written until the events of the past two days.
• The paragraph outlines, with evidence and sources, that the House of Commons authorities do not consider Mr Adams to be an Member of the House, and Belfast West is a vacant constituency,
• As I have said to User:Mo ainm tonight, I had no idea, at all, of the community guidelines relating to The Troubles. I have not edited, as far as I can remember, any subject matter related to The Troubles in my time as a Wikipedia editor. Indeed I have edited parliamentary constituency articles for seats in and outside Northern Ireland without ever being made aware of these rules.
• I contend that my paragraph does not break rules or guidelines. It is not "private research" in the way I understand Wikipedia defines this charge.
• I contend that my paragraph is enough for both casual and expert readers to understand the context of Mr Adams' resignation
• I do not feel it is necessary to place my edit into the arena of an enforcement ruling. I have been an editor for many years, and this is the first time I have ever been subject to such a charge, which has taken me by some surprise.

I respect the decision of those involved in deciding the outcome of this case.

doktorb _words^deeds 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Edit 12/03 The article Belfast West by-election, 2011 has been copy-edited by another editor, not connected to either party in this case. The offending paragraph has been removed. I consider this Request to be no longer necessary. doktorb _words^deeds 01:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Doktorbuk[edit]

• Quite frankly there is the question that arbitration regs don't apply here. Apart from the ex-MP for the constituency being heavily involved in the Troubles, the page has nothing to do with the Troubles at all so the restrictions shouldn't apply. The page in question was regarding an upcoming British parliamentary contituency election which has nothing to do with any of the restiction requirements. Or is it that every page that even mentions gerry adams has to be subject to the regulations? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Doktorbuk[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case, the 1RR restriction looks like a community-imposed restriction and not an Arbitration Committee-imposed one. It is at any rate not clear that this 1RR restriction has at any time been imposed by a vote of the Arbitration Committee or by a person acting under its delegated authority. I am therefore of the opinion that it cannot be enforced in this venue or with AE authority. (There might have been a request for clarification about this, but I no longer remember).  Sandstein  14:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a purely practical matter, I am not sure where else one would go to request enforcement of a community-imposed sanction. AN/I is unlikely to give the focused and structured discussion called for in such cases; the Climate change board was ... a fiasco; the Obama and Palin boards are moribund; the British Isles board was active when last I checked, but is focused on editing issues (and is hardly a model for that). I think that spinning out a multiplicity of special-purpose boards is not the way to go here.

Moving on to the matter at hand, I am inclined to decline this report anyway. The issue at hand seems amenable to ordinary discussion, and intervening would appear to be counterproductive even were it clear that this board could do so. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The community has not been logging its agreed-to 1RR restrictions in any central place. Maybe a new section at the bottom of WP:RESTRICT should be added. I agree with Sandstein that the 1RR we are speaking of is from the community and was not imposed by Arbcom itself. Doktorbuk can't be sanctioned per this noticeboard for a 1RR violation. If the matter were serious, the Troubles remedy known as 'Probation' might be applied to Doktorbuk, but it seems too early for that. Probation puts the editor under 1RR/week on Troubles articles. This request should be closed with no action against Doktorbuk. For more technicalities, see [72]. Arbcom did not accept Elonka's proposed amendment to allow discretionary sanctions and it did not add its own endorsement to the community's 1RR restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We went through this back in 2009, and the Committee then saw no problem with using AE for Community Sanction enforcement. (I should know, I brought the arbcom request.) Now that I'm the other side of the issue, I still agree with them that it's fine to use this. SirFozzie (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Maybe that could be clarified somehow on the case page? The way the sanction is presented there is pretty nonstandard, with much unsigned commentary and so on.  Sandstein  06:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, we can address the matter here as a violation of the community sanction. It is an actual 1RR violation. The article has been edited since, and the paragraph by Doktorbuk has been removed. He indicates above that he will not restore it. As a community sanction case, I recommend this be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, and I am so closing it.  Sandstein  06:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Jalapenos do exist[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Gatoclass (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jalapenos do exist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

• Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions
• Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive78#Jalapenos_do_exist

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. [73]. Reversion of this edit. With diff #2 below: Violation of global 1RR restriction on I-P articles. Violation of Jalapenos' 1RR per day ban on I-P articles.
2. [74]. Reversion of this edit. With diff #1 above: Violation of global 1RR restriction on I-P articles. Violation of Jalapenos' 1RR per day ban on I-P articles.
3. [75] Gross violation of WP:NPOV through the creation of another heavily biased article from this user. See further explanation below.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. [76] Warning by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On December 20 last year, Jalapenos do exist was banned from making more than one global revert per day on I-P related articles, for a period of three months. This came on top of the 1RR restriction that was imposed on all editors in the I-P topic area. The first two diffs in the evidence section above demonstrate that Jalapenos has violated both restrictions by making two clear reverts on the same article only 8 hours apart.

The third diff above, represents the state of the article as Jalapenos created it before others started to make substantial edits to it. I submit that the article he created represents a gross violation of NPOV, for several reasons:

• As with other I-P articles Jalapenos has created, this article completely omitted any statements from Palestinian moderates, presenting only extreme or hardline points of view. Thus, we learn in the intro that Palestinians in Rafah celebrated in the streets, but nowhere in the article was it mentioned that Palestinian residents of Awarta condemned the attack. We learned that Al-Aqsa called the attack "heroic" and Hamas justified it, but not that the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority condemned it. Nor did the article mention that the attack may have been carried out in retaliation for the killing of two Palestinian teenagers from Awarta last year. I was able to find all this information in five minutes from the sources that Jalapenos himself provided: [77][78] Jalapenos must have read them, but he has chosen to simply omit any information that might detract from his one-sided presentation of Palestinians as bloodthirsty and vengeful.

• Jalapenos included not one, but three horrific images of bodies of the victims. All three images were quickly deleted from Commons by an admin, but not before J. had reverted the removal of only one of them by another user (see diff #1 above). Note that J. gave no reason for his revert.

• Jalapenos restored the information about Palestinians in Rafah celebrating the killings after I had removed it as wp:undue in the lead (see diff #2 above). He gave no explanation for his revert, in common with his usual practice. Nor did he leave any explanation on the talk page. At the moment he reverted it, he must have been aware that the residents of Awarta had had an opposite response, calling the killings bestial, but for Jalapenos only the response of the Rafahns merits inclusion in the intro.

Jalapenos has a long history of creating heavily biased content on this encyclopedia, as a look at his editing history will demonstrate. I'd like to think the user is capable of reform but I'm afraid I see no evidence of it with this latest series of edits. I am therefore requesting a topic ban for this user. Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jalapenos

J. states that he was merely responding to a request to move the picture, but Biosketch's comment on the talk page included the comment: please consider that plastering photos of the victims all over the article is nonconstructive editing.[79] Clearly, he felt that the addition of three pictures was excessive. Jalapenos ignored this concern in restoring the image.

Regardless, the condition of the article before others made substantial changes was demonstrably one-sided, to a degree that I think ought to be considered unacceptable. Excluding all but the most extreme Palestinian viewpoints and plastering the article with graphic images of "dead babies", to quote User:Y, should surely be evidence enough of that. Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing the violation of 1RR charge. I missed the fact that Jalapenos had restored the image to a different section, and that he might have believed that by doing so he was responding to Biosketch's main concern. He still could, I think, have asked for clarification, but I think this can no longer be described as a clearcut revert. My apologies to Jalapenos and the adjudicating admins for the error.

In regards to the other part of the case, I will probably have more to say tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request downgrade

On reflection, though I believe the article created by Jalapenos was blatantly POV, I probably would not have brought this request on that evidence alone, it was that in combination with the 1RR violation, since withdrawn, that persuaded me to file it. Though Jalapenos has in my experience made some highly questionable edits at times, and in my opinion added some marginal content, I'm not entirely sure a sanction is warranted at this point. In the absence of further evidence from other users, therefore, and in the interests of collegiality, I am downgrading my enforcement request from a topic ban to a warning. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [80]

Discussion concerning Jalapenos do exist[edit]

Statement by Jalapenos do exist[edit]

I create a pretty good article almost single handedly, and instead of getting thanked, first I get hit with a frivolous AfD (snow kept)[81], and now this bullshit.

In edit #1, a user had removed an image of a victim from the Reactions section with the statement "inappropriately situated, no connection to Reactions"[82]; I agreed, so I restored the image to the Victims section, explaining what I did and why.[83] A very mundane edit in the course of upkeep on an article I created, and by no means a revert. So much for the 1RR allegation.

The NPOV allegation is nonsense. I really don't feel like going through all the falsehoods and carefully constructed half-truths, but if you just look at this article and my other articles, you can see that they are not biased, and many editors have said as much. I'm proud of the fact that I've received compliments from editors with declared sympathies on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Please take a good, long look at Gatoclass' editing and complaint history. What's going on here is that Gatoclass has a strong partisan POV regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, he seeks to imprint his POV on any he article he can (typically articles where someone else did the real work), he relentlessly bullies anyone who gets in his way, and he attempts to manipulate the AE process for this purpose. Of course, people who share his partisan POV will support these attempts, and people who oppose it will oppose them. You guys can either find a way to put a stop to this behavior, or you can let your time get wasted with drama and watch as sensible editors continue to disappear from this area out of frustration. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Gatoclass[edit]

Having apparently abandoned the 2RR allegation, Gatoclass is now clutching at the idea that I ignored Biosketch's concerns when restoring a photo to the Victims section. Not exactly an issue for AE, but in any case Biosketch has explicitly stated "I support displaying one photo in the Victims section, as a relevant document illustrating the event with which the article is concerned"[84]. My position is similar, and we editors who are actually writing the article are, at this very moment, having a civil and rather nuanced discussion on what to do with the photos.[85] Cptnono, NortyNort and Biosketch essentially agree with me, and Robofish essentially agrees with Y, who unilaterally deleted all the photos by invoking WP:IAR. I agree with Biosketch that meanwhile the deletion "should be reverted pending a more articulate explanation", and you might say that our concern is being ignored, but I am bound by 1RR. Meanwhile, Gatoclass, who has contributed nothing to the article except a short series of POV-serving edits, has simply not participated in the discussion. And why should he, when he can circumvent the normal consensus-building procedures and just force his partisan position on the article by gaming AE? I guess that he will soon receive assistance from Mkativerata, who has not sullied himself with actual discussion on the talk page either. That's how it goes. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sandstein regarding Fatah and sources[edit]

I originally wrote in the lead: Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the military wing of Palestinian Fatah, claimed responsibility for the attack, calling it a "heroic operation" This was based on the cited Guardian article, which wrote: The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the armed wing of Fatah, the dominant political faction in the West Bank, said it had carried out the "heroic operation … ". Word for word.

I also wrote in the body: Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. The statement said the "heroic" operation was a "natural response to massacres committed by the occupation against our people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank." This was based on the cited Jerusalem Post source, which wrote: "PA officials in Ramallah expressed skepticism over a statement released by Fatah’s militia, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. The statement said the “heroic” operation was a “natural response to massacres committed by the occupation against our people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.” Again, word for word. (See also ElComandantChe's briefer statement on this.)

Both cited sources state that Fatah's militia/the armed wing of Fatah, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack. As do my statements. Neither source attributes any responsibility to the PA, nor do either of my statements. The Guardian source notes the commonly known fact that Fatah dominates the PA, as does my second statement. Everything in both statements is in one or both of the sources, though the second statement has a short explanatory clause that's only stated explicitly in the first source.

Mkateriva deleted the second statement entirely[86] with the edit summary rm statement that falsifies and exaggerates source and throws in a copyright violation for good measure. I've already shown that the edit summary is at least partially false. I'm not sure what he meant by "throws in a copyright violation". He then proceeded to remove the first statement entirely[87], with the edit summary rm claim contradicted by http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=211909 This edit summary is also false (though it might have been an innocent mistake), because Mkateriva's second Jpost article does not contradict my Guardian and first Jpost articles; it merely notes that Al Hayat published a contradictory report, and it neither endorses nor challenges this report.[88] Al Hayat is owned by a prince of Saudi Arabia, a regime not known for allowing a robust independent press. While it would nevertheless be perfectly fine to include both statements side by side, there is no justification for simply deleting a statement agreed on by both The Guardian and The Jerusalem Post because it is contradicted by Al Hayat, an inferior source in both quantity and quality.

In short, my statements did not misrepresent the sources in any way, and Mkateriva selectively removed them under flimsy and partially false pretexts. It is entirely obvious that he was uncomfortable with the claim of responsibility by Fatah's armed wing, reported by two mainstream reliable sources, and chose to deal with this discomfort by simply deleting them. What this episode illustrates is that with a strong enough commitment to deception and sophistry, any edit - any edit whatsoever - can be portrayed as sinister, and any selective removal of material, no matter how biased and egregious, can be gotten away with by using AE as a distractive. The logical conclusion of this type of behavior is Unomi's long missive which basically boils down to "there are things in the sources that JDE didn't use!" How true, and how tragic, since I would be going back to use the sources more thoroughly, thereby improving the article and Wikipedia, if only I weren't stuck here responding to spurious accusations. The question is whether people who act like this have to pay any price for it, or if they can just go on freely slinging their mud hoping that some of it will stick while they continue with their bad editing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sandstein regarding Hamas and sources[edit]

The main issue here is that the source has been changed since I used it. The cached original version is titled Palestinian takes revenge, kills 5 settlers. This is where I got but stated that the incident was a Palestinian "revenge" attack on Israelis. That the whole thing is a statement by Hamas is simple: the source is a Hamas website. The Hamas statement acknowledges that the attack occurred but, notably, does not claim responsibility. That Hamas denied responsibility has been stated explicitly in that same primary source[89] and in mainstream secondary sources, e.g. [90], but I was using the first source anyway and its indication by silence was sufficient to source the point. My summary of Hamas's position was accurate and representative of the source in every element. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mkativerata[edit]

In addition to the substantial evidence filed above, a few other issues demonstrate the relentless POV-pushing of JdE on this article:

• Falsified linking of the attack to Fatah and the Palestinian Authority. This was the article before anyone else really touched it. It said Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. Plainly, this statement is designed to push a POV that Fatah, and thus the PA, is linked to the attacks. The statement falsifies the source cited. The source says nothing of Fatah releasing a statement. Absolutely nothing. The source actually says that the PA (controlled by Fatah) was "sceptical" of a statement supposedly released by the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. Of course, the main content of the source is to show that Fatah and the PA condemened the attacks. But JdE's article makes no mention of the PA's condemnation, instead choosing to falsify the source to implicate Fatah. The fact that JdE's content also violated the copyright of the source cited demonstrates the extreme rush in which this hatchet job of an article was prepared.
• Of course, we later found out that in fact the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades denied having anything to do with the attack. In these two edits I added a more up-to-date source saying that al-Aqsa denied involvement, and that the "statement" claiming responsibility was issued by a random splinter group that uses al-Aqsa's name. But despite the evidence to the contrary, JdE had to persist in restoring the perjorative links to Fatah despite the source used being obviously out of date and overtaken by more accurate sources (I'd edit the article again... but 1RR).
• As per Gatoclass, the article took great pains to mention anything that could reflect badly on the Palestinian administration. But JdE conspicuously ignored information from the same sources that could provide a more balanced view, such as the condemnations by PA, the reaction of residents of Awarta.

Breaches of 1RR are forgivable, and it seems there weren't any here. But POV-pushing by source falsification and selective inclusion of perjorative material cannot be tolerated. This is exactly what topic bans were designed for. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point. The source says "PA officials in Ramallah expressed skepticism over a statement released by Fatah’s militia, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings", i.e. JDE representation of the source is quite accurate. No comments on credibility of both JPost articles mentioned above. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis does "Fatah's militia" = "Fatah"? That link is plainly a falsification, especially when (a) the same sentence says that the PNA (controlled by Fatah) expressed scepticism about the statement; and (b) it is well established that the description of AAMB as "Fatah's militia" is dubious and controversial. JdE has deliberately set out to mispresent the source to tie the attacks not only to AAMB but to Fatah. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Just a couple of points: (1) Unomi has presented more evidence of source falsification below (see the Hamas "revenge" issue). (2) A dispute about POV on a particular article is a content issue; an accusation that a user is pushing POV in his or her article work is a conduct issue. Pushing POV falls within the scope of ARBPIA sanctions as conduct that "seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". AE admins here aren't being asked to adjudicate on a content dispute (the content dispute at the article has pretty much settled down); they're being asked to sanction an editor for pushing POV. Accordingly, I think the POV accusations against JdE are actionable as an AE request. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, POV-pushing is sanctionable, but normally not on the basis of writing a single (even if possibly deficient) article. We'd need evidence for a pattern of non-neutral conduct. The previous AE request cited below may be relevant, though.  Sandstein  23:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on further review and in fairness to JdE, the Hamas/revenge/attribution issue may be due to an earlier version of the source that was linked. It seems an earlier version of the Al Qassam article said in its headline, "Palestinian takes revenge, kills 5 settlers". Al Qassam is linked to Hamas, so perhaps the attribution of the "revenge" quote to Hamas can be explained on that basis. An earlier version of the source is copy/pasted at this forum. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As another example of the POV-pushing in Itamar killings, JdE included 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign as a "See also" link. That article is a controversial article essentially claiming a concerted effort by Palestinian factions to use violence to derail the peace process in 2010. Including a see also link in Itamar killings was none other than a brazen attempt, unsupported by any reliable sources, to suggest that these murders were a cynical part of that so-called militancy campaign. It should come as no surprise that JdE is one of the principal authors of 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JdE's recent lengthy post, as it questions my own edits:

[91] The phrase "It added that the perpetrator managed to return safely to his base." is a word-for-word copyright violation of [92].

The suggestion that Al-Hayat is an unreliable source in these matters is completely spurious. A read of our own WP article on the newspaper will show that. The fact that the Jerusalem Post reported Al-Hayat's reports verbatim indicates that it is accepted for its reliability across the spectrum of reasonable I/P views. This New York Times article is a good read. It was abundantly clear by the time of my edit (and remains clear now) that early news reports attributing the attack to the AAMB were completely wrong, and I make no apology for correcting it. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by unomi[edit]

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, neither its selection of articles nor individual articles will ever be 'finished', we work together, sometimes competitively and at best cooperatively to continually improve presentation of the material available - in light of this we shouldn't hold any one editor responsible for 'perfecting' an article. I believe that this holds true when looking at the broad selection of sources available for any given subject, however, when an editor chooses to selectively include material from a source - and indeed materially misrepresent the content of the sources - then we have a problem.

JDE was fairly recently sanctioned at AE, see here, where uninvolved admins stated: "I do, however, see other problematic editing, including apparent single-purpose, POV-driven editing affecting multiple articles, including article creation, ..." and "... we caution him that future misconduct on these articles can result in him being excluded from the topic area, blocked from editing, or otherwise restricted.".

Did JDE fail to represent the sources he used adequately? Looking at the version indicated by Mkativerata above, starting from the bottom up.

1. Hamas, the group that governs the Gaza Strip, did not claim responsibility, but stated that the incident was a Palestinian "revenge" attack on Israelis and argued that Palestinian factions "have the full right... to use all tools and means of resistance" against Israel.[93]

• The only thing regarding the perpetrator and motivation stated there is: "Israeli media claimed that angry Palestinian attacked a home in the illegal settlement of Itamar near Nablus and killed Five settlers from one family before he escapes." I would also note that the passage regarding armed resistance is edited to remove any mention of international law, the occupation and changes 'Israeli occupation forces and the armed Israeli settlers' to simply 'Israel'.

• Also note that the page shows related stories, one bearing the headline: "Hamas denies responsibility for Itamar incident" and contains: "Al-Rashak confirmed that harming children is not part of Hamas' policy, nor is it the policy of the resistance factions."

2. Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. The statement said the "heroic" operation was a "natural response to massacres committed by the occupation against our people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank." It added that the perpetrator managed to return safely to his base.[94]

• The source article as a whole is somewhat confusing to be honest, personally I would probably look for a more authoritative source regarding just who claimed responsibility for what. A quick google search quickly brings into to question the quality of the assertion: A previously unknown group, the Imad Mughniyah Cell of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack Saturday, but an unnamed Israeli officer told Haaretz daily that this was "nonsense."[95]
• The source does however repeatedly state that the PNA condemned “any act that targets civilians, regardless of their identity.” the entire first 1/3 of the source article is dedicated to the PNA condemning the killings, yet none, not one bit of that is mentioned under Palestinian reactions, not just a little. That the PNA condemned the killings is repeated in just about every source that was in use at that time.

3. This LA Times article is used 3 times, mostly for details that in some cases are contradicted by sources closer to the event, such as the 2 unharmed children were hiding rather than sleeping. But much information in the source is ignored such as:

• Israeli authorities suspect that the killings, the deadliest attack inside a settlement in several years, were either a strike by Palestinian militants or a revenge attack by residents of the West Bank village of Awarta, where two Palestinian teenagers were shot to death a year ago as they collected garbage near Itamar.

• Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad also criticized the killings. "As we have always rejected violence against our people, we reject it against others and we condemn it."
• Tensions between settlers and Palestinian villagers have been escalating for weeks. Founded in 1984, the Itamar settlement sits on land that was once controlled by the village of Awarta, said Awarta Mayor Qais Awwad.

• In recent weeks, Palestinians have accused settlers in the area of chopping down hundreds of olive trees, burning Palestinians' cars and shooting at villagers. Last week, Israeli soldiers were accused of using live gunfire to quell one clash, injuring 10 Palestinians and one settler.

• Itamar's settlers are considered among the most fervent, believing Israel has a historic and religious right to absorb the West Bank, which Israel seized during the 1967 Middle East War. Most of the international community, however, views Israel's settlements as illegal and has called for Israel to end the occupation by allowing Palestinians to build their own state on the land.

• Israeli soldiers appeared to be focusing their efforts on family members of the two Palestinians killed last March. At the time, Palestinians had complained that the unarmed youths were killed by settlers from Itamar, although Israeli soldiers said they shot the teens. A military investigation was opened into the incident. Several male relatives in the family were arrested Saturday and their home remained surrounded by Israeli soldiers.

I can reach no other conclusion than JDE deliberately excluded information which would be of value to an encyclopedic article but might run counter to his intentions with wikipedia.

We aren't talking about just not doing diligent research in finding appropriate sources, we are talking about intentional and consistent omissions from numerous sources that he had read. It is this kind of editing which is most problematic in terms of editor friction and is an impediment to a collaborative editing atmosphere, not to mention being just plain manipulative of wikipedia readers. un☯mi 21:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Sandstein

Regarding: "Whether the article as a whole conformed to WP:NPOV when it was created, or whether relevant information was omitted, is probably a content dispute that cannot be decided in an arbitration context"

I have to echo the sentiment of Mkativerata above. The I/P discretionary sanctions state that this type of behavior is falls under the purview of AE: that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. it also explicitly mentions WP:NPOV: Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing. WP:NPOV has as its first line: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. - it may be that this should be followed in theory but that in practice it rarely happens (especially in contentious areas), but that is more than anything the fault of those who should be enforcing the policy. One could argue that omitting material that speaks to possible motives, such as carried by the LA Times, might potentially be a content issue, but surely not that the PNA had condemned the attacks when half of the article is about 'reactions' and when the sources are brimming with the PNA reactions. It strikes me that intentionally omitting that the PNA had condemned the attacks, and even going so far as intimating that it was linked to them is such a gross violation when you consider that just about every single source JDE used carried the information that the PNA had condemned them. un☯mi 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to JDE's comment

Regarding: "The logical conclusion of this type of behavior is Unomi's long missive which basically boils down to "there are things in the sources that JDE didn't use!" How true, and how tragic, since I would be going back to use the sources more thoroughly, thereby improving the article and Wikipedia, if only I weren't stuck here responding to spurious accusations."

Let me be Frank, Shirley you must be joking. In light of your previous AE where you also forwarded this very same mix of mild outrage, denial of any wrong-doing and deflection of core issues I find myself yet again amazed at the credulity that you attribute to your fellow editors. I do however welcome your tacit acknowledgement that you did not reflect the weight of contents in the sources that you used. That you would have, if only.. rings mightily hollow however; you managed to add the responses of the UN, France, Germany, US, 'quartet on the Middle East', Perez and Netanyahu - replete with flags in most cases, yet the Palestinian reactions are 1. giving out candy, 2. military wing of fatah claiming responsibility calling it 'heroic', 3. Hamas calling it an act of revenge - yet failed to mention what is stated in just about each source that you use - The Palestinian National Authority condemning the attacks. Sorry, but the contention that you somehow didn't have the time to mention that is laughable. The conscious and willful omission of what is given weight in the sources is a blatant WP:NPOV violation, and attempting to reduce that to "there are things in the sources that JDE didn't use!" is brazen, but brings us back to the same situation as in the previous AE - assume bad faith or assume no clue.

Regarding: "The question is whether people who act like this have to pay any price for it, or if they can just go on freely slinging their mud hoping that some of it will stick while they continue with their bad editing."

Indeed.

un☯mi 02:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the downgrade request by Gatoclass

I never expected more to come of this than a warning and would find that a satisfactory conclusion to this request as well. un☯mi 14:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jalapenos do exist[edit]

I was heavily involved in the Itamar article yesterday and also, albeit to a much lesser extent, with the Itamar attack article that split off of it. My immediately following comments may therefore be considered, and may indeed be, biased. On the matter of Revert #1, in all fairness it ought not to be classified as a Revert. I removed a photo placed in the Reactions sections, feeling that that was not an appropriate place for it; whereupon User:Jalapenos do exist proceeded to restore the photo in the Victims section – which, at least in relative terms, was a more appropriate place for it (or less inappropriate, depending on how you want to construe it).

I can sympathize with User:Gatoclass' remark about the article taking on what could be considered, and indeed may have been, a biased character. I commented to that effect on the Discussion page with regard to the omission of Prime Minister Fayyad's formal condemnation and with regard to the (spurious, in my view) attribution of responsibility to the Fatah party. The Jerusalem Post article that was the source for the first paragraph of the Palestinian reaction did include information to the effect that Fayyad condemned the massacre, but the editor(s) elected not to include it in the article. It also explained that Fatah did not directly claim responsibility for the massacre but rather that a faction of Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade did – but this comment too went unaddressed.

However, I would not be as hasty as User:Gatoclass in concluding that User:Jalapenos do exist's edits deliberately left out information. One must keep in mind the fact that this was a clear case of aggressor and victim. Oftentimes that relationship is not so sharply defined in the ongoing cycle of violence between Israel and the Palestinians but, given the circumstances, in this case it is only natural to frame it in those terms. Furthermore, specifically with regard to the Fatah point, User:Jalapenos do exist may simply not have been informed enough as an editor on the dynamics of the Palestinian's quasi-political/quasi-paramilitary leadership structures. That is to say, he may candidly have been unaware of the distinction between Fatah and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

I'm not one to draw clear conclusions one way or the other, but these observations are what I have to contribute to the discussion for the benefit of those that will ultimately need to draw them.—Biosketch (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cptnono

Since the concern over edit warring has been withdrawn this is only a case of POV pushing. I agree that JDE created a article that was overly emotional. It is an overtly emotional subject. We cannot punish an editor for writing about a dead baby. If he was not edit warring then he did nothing many editors would not do. So if he was not edit warring he was simply adding a POV that any rationale editor should understand. He did not edit war over it and instead let other editors counter the expected POV. When babies do not die then editors will not have to mirror the sources. Next time he should try harder but if an admin can honestly say they see a problem with an editor writing an article about an emotional subject then they need to go check out the new page patrol page. Gatoclass should accept that he made a request for enforcement on partially false pretenses and drop it. JDE should try harder to write less emotionally even when it deals with dead babies. Dead babies die in Gaza City so this statement could be reversed to apply to POV pushers on the other side. No edit warring? What is the problem Gatoclass? Cptnono (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cooment by BorisG

I agree with Biosketch. If an article appears one-sided (as this one arguably did), the right thing to do is to correct or remove the bias and include missing info, not to file an AE request. Since there was no attempt by JDE to dispute or disrupt such changes, there is no justfification for any sanction (perhaps a warning). And both sides will do well by assuming good faith and avoiding gross incivility expressed in some comments above.

On a more general point, I think admins should consider discouraging any future AE requests by editors involved in disputes. Why? Because this page itself has become a battleground. I think this should apply to both sides. Don't know how practical this is, just an idea. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC) - BorisG (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jalapenos do exist[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• After a brief review, the only potentially actionable problem I see is the accusation that Jalapenos do exist may have misrepresented the source [96] when he wrote that "Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement [claiming responsibility] by its militia", whereas the source reads: "PA officials in Ramallah expressed skepticism over a statement released by Fatah’s militia ..." This does appear to attribute responsibility to the PA and Fatah in a way that the source does not. I'd appreciate a comment by Jalapenos do exist on this matter.

  The other accusations have been withdrawn (1RR) or do not seem actionable to me: Whether the article as a whole conformed to WP:NPOV when it was created, or whether relevant information was omitted, is probably a content dispute that cannot be decided in an arbitration context.  Sandstein  22:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The first point raised by Unomi is also potentially problematic. Jalapenos do exist wrote in the article that "Hamas, the group that governs the Gaza Strip, did not claim responsibility, but stated that the incident was a Palestinian "revenge" attack on Israelis", citation marks in the original. This text is sourced to [97]. Nowhere does this source contain the words "Hamas" or "revenge", or the assertion that Hamas did not claim responsibility, or even the assertion that Palestinians did it. That claim is attributed to "Israeli media" in the source: "Israeli media claimed that angry Palestinian [sic] attacked ...". This looks like another potential source misrepresentation.  Sandstein  23:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Apparently the source has changed in the interim.  Sandstein  20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am unconvinced by Jalapenos do exist's explanation concerning the PA/Fatah source misrepresentation issue. I've taken note that the requesting editor now only asks for a warning. Given that non ultra petita does not apply to AE requests, we are not bound by that request to "downgrade" the sanction. Nonetheless, under these circumstances, closing the request with a warning may be prudent so as not to unnecessarily inflame tempers, and if no admin disagrees, I will do so.  Sandstein  21:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Without objection, so closed. Jalapenos do exist is warned not to misrepresent sources when contributing content to Wikipedia.  Sandstein  16:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Jacurek[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Jacurek, who has a long history of disruption and sanctions relating to eastern European topics, after coming back from a ban, has focussed his editing almost entirely on lame edit-warring over the inclusion of Polish, German or Lithuanian geographical terms in the leads of various articles.

• On Vilnius University: [98][99][100][101]
• On St. Anne's Church, Vilnius: [102][103][104]
• On Bernardine Cemetery: [105][106][107] [108](in the usual old tag-teams, with Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) (aka Radeksz) against Dr. Dan (talk · contribs), M.K (talk · contribs) and Lokyz (talk · contribs)). Also possible IP sock: [109] (Notice: Checkuser says that this IP is not any of the editors discussed here.  Sandstein  23:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
• On Cathedral Square, Vilnius: [110][111][112]
• On Suvalkija: [113][114][115]

He also made the obvious WP:POINT move of removing the German name from Gdansk [116], explicitly in retaliation, and in blatant breach of the long-standing Gdansk rules.

More edit-warring just under 3RR elsewhere: on Ukrainische_Hilfspolizei, [117][118][119]

One thing that's troubling is that the same old cliques and tag-teams known from the WP:EEML days are still showing up together on the same articles regularly in many of these cases.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

not applicable, has long history of Digwuren and EEML sanctions

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

renewed revert restriction at the least, preferably full topic ban from geographical naming issues, or full ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would take action myself here, as I have done before, if not for the fact that in one of the contentious naming issues cited above I gave my own editorial opinion earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. to Piotrus' comment below: asking "who gave me the diffs" is a pretty serious assumption of bad faith all by itself. I'm perfectly able to collect diffs myself. I saw something light up on Jacurek's talkpage (which happened to be still on my watchlist from time immemorial), and out of curiousity took a look at what he had been up to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[120]

Discussion concerning Jacurek[edit]

Statement by Jacurek[edit]

Recently, I focused my work on adding missing alternative names to the articles related to shared Lithuanian, Polish, Jewish, Belorussian or Ukrainian history and heritage following general naming policy . I have beed editing without violating any standards of behaviour and in line with normal editorial process. All my edits/reverts presented here are spread out over time, discussed by me [121], [122], [123] [124], [125], [126] or in line with discussion I followed [127] and ALL are supported by the WP:NCGN. I stated in my edit summaries why I'm doing such edits and the polices I followed [128]

I was adding alternative names in various languages:

• German names to Polish places:

[129] [130]

• Polish names to Belorussian places:

[131]

• Yiddish, Belorussian, Ethnic Kashubian and Ukrainian names to Polish places:

[132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138]

• Polish, Yiddish and Russian names to Ukrainian places:

[139] [140] [141] [142] [143]

• Lithuanian names to Polish places:

[144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149]

• Latvian, Belorussian, Russian to Lithianian palces:

[150] [151]

• ...and finally Polish names to the Lithuanian places:

[152] [153] [154] [155] [156] Here however, all my edits were immediately reverted by Dr. Dan (talk · contribs), M.K (talk · contribs) and Lokyz (talk · contribs)) I was called Dyslexic [157], amusing, a troll [158], a nationalistic troll [159][160] chauvinist playing games [161] etc. Disrespect, taunting and incivility was also directed at other people by mentioned editors: ex-admin RPG player is trying to make a project of Wikipedia a playground of his own [162] [163] [164] Please note that one was warned by administrator because of these incivil remarks [165] and another complained about [166].

Here are just few diff's as an examples of the name removals by mentioned editors: [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174]

• As far as removing a German name from the lead of the Gdansk [175] article I reverted my own edits [[176]] [[177]] from December in line with this discussion [178] and linked this talk page in my edit summary [179]. This edit was NOT to make any point.

• As far as Ukrainische_Hilfspolizei, [180][181][182] each two edit are different and this one is not even mine [183]

• As far as IP sock: [184] - this is not me and I wonder why FP can so easily and without any proof accuse people of using socks?

Why was I singled out and accused of violating the polices by Future Perfect at Sunrise? EXACTLY the same report could have been filed by him on user Dr. Dan (talk · contribs), M.K (talk · contribs) or Lokyz (talk · contribs):

• On Vilnius University: [185],[186], [187],[188], [189], [190]
• On St. Anne's Church, Vilnius: [191], [192], [193], [194], [195]
• On Bernardine Cemetery: [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207]
• On Cathedral Square, Vilnius: [208], [209], [210],
• On Suvalkija: [211], [212], [213], [214],

The bottom line is that I was following normal editorial process, watching revert count limitations and all my edits were supported by the WP:NCGN. We really have an opportunity now to resolve ongoing problem of removal by some Lithuanian editors all Polish names from the articles related to the Polish-Lithuanian heritage and reach the agreement thanks to discussion here [215]. I echo this comment [216] %100. Please Sandstain, look outside the AE box this only time and the problem will gone.--Jacurek (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MISSED FROM MY GDANSK SECTION-PLEASE ADD - please do not classify me together with editors who remove one language names for nationalistic reasons. I was editing names in various languages (German, Polish, Russian, Lithuanian, Yiddish, Latvian, Latvian and Byelorussian) - Refer to my edit history. [217] - (adding German) then correcting to follow standards [218] --Jacurek (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for correcting--Jacurek (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion of an uninvolved administrator[edit]

As per permission of the reviewing administrators third opinion has been requested[219] Thank you all for patience.--Jacurek (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jacurek[edit]

Comment by Volunteer Marek[edit]

There's an ongoing discussion about the proper way of handling alternative names here [220]. The underlying problem is complete disregard for naming policy on the part of Dr. Dan/Lokyz/MK. This is compounded by the fact that there is some confusion over what the actual policy is. Hence the discussion.

Jacurek's edits at Gdansk where a response - and in line with - to the discussion as it was occurring at Naming conventions (the diff above), with comments provided by a third opinion (which I requested) at Vilnius university [221], and are in agreement with views expressed by such individuals like User:Novickas and User:Deacon of Pndapetzim who are about as far as humanely and even super-humanely possible from being "same old cliques and tag-teams known from the WP:EEML days." As such Jacurek's edits are part of the standard BRD cycle, are not edit warring, and none of them are in any way a breach of policy.

Throughout Jacurek has remained calm and civil despite several provocations. In particular, Dr. Dan has made several personal attacks against various users:

• [222] Dr. Dan calling editors "nationalist trolls"
• [223] Dr. Dan calling editors "nationalist trolls"
• [224] Dr. Dan taunting Piotrus, shortly after coming off an interaction ban with him: ("It's nice to have you back editing after your sabbatical. It must have been an unpleasant experience. ")
• [225] Dr. Dan implies that editors are "nationalistic, chauvinistic"

At the naming conventions discussion Deacon of Pndapetzim, who I think can fairly be characterized as an "opponent" of people who used to be on the Eastern European mailing list has stated: Without wishing to offend anyone, my experience of other language names in leads is that they function in practice as nationalist scent markings. Jacurek's edits were completely in line with this sentiment.

Additionally Deacon stated, in reference to inclusion of German names in ledes of articles on Polish places: Can't say I approve of most of those edits. - again, in line with Jacurek's above edits.

Likewise, Deacon said: in those cases this should be in the main text with citations not just in brackets at the lead, where it looks like simple nationalist scent-marking and is thus provocative.

At Vilnius University, user Novickas, who can also be seen as usually on the other side of the issue stated: Yes, I think all articles ought to follow WP:Lead, which emphasizes concision and readability, but leaves room for an entity's multiple names by way of a dedicated name section. - again in reference to the inclusion of German names in Polish places.

As such Jacurek's edits are not in any way a way of making a POINT but rather a response to what people are saying the policy is.

Did I mention that none of Jacurek's edits in any way violated any kind of policy what so ever?

Finally, let me point out that a discussion on the subject is actually ongoing and amazingly, for like the first time in a long while it is actually civil, calm and is even starting to look productive, people who previously have very strongly disagreed with each other in the past might actually be able to work something out and about the last freakin thing that is going to help here is a completely pointless and baseless AE report such as this one which good money says will do nothing but attract the usual infighting, bickering and sniping.

What is the point of this AE report? How is it not counter productive? Why do you find it necessary to sabotage a potentially productive discussion?Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sandstein's suggestion and Ed Johnston

You can't judge/sanction editors based on whether they're "engaged in a campaign of mass removal or mass addition" if the editor involved is following established naming guidelines. For comparison look at User:HerkusMonte's edits [226] (and I wish to be 100% clear that this is no way a criticism of Herkus), particularly all the edits with the edit summary "lang-de" which in the recent past have comprised the majority of Herkus' editing on Wikipedia. Jacurek's edits are no different than Herkus' and neither editor did anything wrong. The only difference is that when Herkus "engages in his campaign of mass addition" he IS NOT immediately reverted by tag teams of Polish editors who also refuse to discuss the issue meaningfully and some of whom engage in personal attacks - but this does happen with addition of Polish names to places with shared Polish and Lithuanian history. Unlike Jacurek, Herkus is left alone, because he is more or less following current naming policy (again, if that is the appropriate policy is another question) - just like Jacurek was.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not examining mass additions or removals per se, but edit wars. Whether the reverts conform with any naming policy or guideline is irrelevant for the purpose of this request, because the edit-warring policy does not exempt such reverts.  Sandstein  18:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perfectly well that AE is not about judging compliance of edits with the naming policy. However it is also the case that in one instance you get edit wars because a group of editors does not wish to comply with naming policy, whereas in the other case - which involves exactly the same kinds of edits - you don't get edit wars because, well, because the editors on both sides are more reasonable and have no problem with following policy. As such, punishing Jacurek in this case, even if he reverted others is tantamount to rewarding the battleground behavior of those who purposefully ignore this naming policy. If the purpose of this board is to prevent conflicts from continuing in this area then encouraging this kind of behavior is obviously not the way to further that goal. A bit of common sense is needed here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to this "list" business Uhh, not sure what this list is supposed to be or what it is supposed to accomplish (in fact, it's a bad idea to begin with) but for what it's worth:

1. I've never edited St. Anne's Church, Vilnius or Cathedral Square, Vilnius.
2. I made one edit to Suvalkija back in August (so 5+ months ago) after Lokyz removed the name with an edit summary that made no sense, but I didn't make any further edits even after he blind reverted me literally within minutes ([227], [228], [229]) (btw, please note that "Suvalkų kraštas", the Lithuanian term, has been in the article on the Suwałki Region for something like 3 years straight and no Polish editor ever tried to remove it - which is quite telling when you compare it to the situation at Suvalkija).
3. On Vilnius University, after observing the blind reverts by Lokyz [230], [231], I started a discussion on talk on March 5th [232] without making any edits myself. Please note that Lokyz's edit summary justification for his revert was: PLease use talk page before starting edit war. (on an edit war he started) - however, once I started a discussion on talk he didn't even bother to reply or actually discuss. Hence, four days later on March 9th, I made the change to the article - this was my single edit to the article. Of course it got reverted within minutes (again - well, actually this time it took him two hours) [233]. At that point I requested a third opinion [234], still not making any edits to the article myself. Novickas at this time edited the article by expanding the names section which is fine with me. Note the pattern here: Lokyz, Dr. Dan and MK blind revert, while at the same time admonishing users to "discuss on talk" or claiming that there is "no consensus" yet, they then don't even bother discussing things when a discussion is initiated. If they do discuss the discussion is very quickly derailed by irrelevant strawmen (like discussion of whether the article on cat should have the Polish "kot" in it [235], even though no one has ever proposed that - you can also ask Kotniski about how productive these "discussions" tend to be and why that is).
4. On Bernardine Cemetery I was also the one who initiated the discussion on talk in the first place, way back in October [236] (though note previous personal attacks by Lokyz, who calls Jacurek dyslexic and says "Dyslexic people are amusing" which is extremely offensive in its own right, no matter who it is directed at). Jacurek likewise tried to engage in good faithed discussion [237] (note also Dr. Dan's mocking of Kotniski [238] in response to [239] with the "Er,..." parody of Kotniski's statement - seriously how is meaningful discussion possible in such circumstances?). Since the talk page consensus appeared to be for the inclusion of the name, and since Lokyz and Dr.Dan ceased participating in the discussion, I made one edit to the article [240] restoring the name (my edits in November where just a standard expansion of the article) on March 7th, or three months after I initiated discussion). The edit was again reverted within minutes by Lokyz [241] with an edit summary in which he purposefully used my previous name (in what I took to be a form of harassment), despite the fact that I had previously asked him specifically not to do that [242] and to which he agreed. I made no further edits to the article after that but instead brought the matter to talk again. Here's the sad/ironic thing - recently through a joint Polish-Lithuanian effort the cemetery was restored as a symbol of Polish-Lithuanian friendship and joint history, and the Lithuanian government funded a sign with the Polish name at the entrance to the cemetery - since generally public signs written in Polish are banned in Lithuania this was a "big deal". But apparantly, some editors are more nationalistic than the Lithuanian government.
5. On Gdansk I made a single edit because the article already has a section which discusses the name in much detail and I was just being told by Novickas and Deacon that policy says that in such cases there's no need for a separate inclusion of the name in the lede. I did not edit war here and don't even try to freakin' pretend that I did. This is total nonsense.

Bottom line: I made one edit at Suvalkija long time ago which was reverted within minutes and I made no subsequent edits. I made one edit at Vilnius University and when it was reverted, within less than three hours, asked for third opinion. At Bernardine Cemetery I initiated discussion on talk and only after it seemed like an agreement was reached for inclusion, and having given it enough time (3 months) did I make one edit and add the name. This too was reverted within minutes and I didn't edit the article any further. I think the picture that emerges here is crystal clear.

I also got to ask why you are limiting this to just these articles? MK regularly edit wars with Belorussians editors over similar matters [243]. Herkus adds German names to Polish places all the time - but never gets reverted because Polish editors, unlike Lithuanian ones, actually follow policy. Why isn't that relevant?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list is currently limited to the articles named in the request and the editors who have been making language-related reverts on them. If there are similar problems with other articles or other editors, I recommend that you make a separate AE request about them. If the same editors have also made similar reverts in other articles, or other editors have made similar reverts in the same articles, you can mention them here so that we may consider including them in the list. I should note that I think that your comment above, "Polish editors, unlike Lithuanian ones, actually follow policy", is extremely problematic, as it indicates nationalist prejudice on your part, and I will take it into account in the decision.  Sandstein  21:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for Christ sake! My comment that "Polish editors, unlike Lithuanian ones, actually follow policy" obviously is in reference to the editors involved in this request - Lokyz, MK and Dr.Dan and then Jacurek and myself. There's no prejudice in it and it is factually verifiable as noted above. The whole request is about the fact that Lokyz, MK and DD have been purposefully ignoring naming policy. Why am I getting the sense that you are purposefully looking for any kind of excuse to railroad me into a sanction? First you put me in that little list of yours for no reason, and now you come up with this nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that the choice of words wasn't the best one and what I should have said was that "because I follow naming policy, unlike Dr. Dan, MK and Lokyz". Apologies. However, my temper at the moment is running extremely high because of the ridiculous insinuations that you (Sandstein) are making against me and the waste of my time that you are forcing me into - I just wasted an hour and a half of my life writing a response, instead of doing real life work, spending time with my kid, or even working on some Wikipedia article. As a result I wrote quickly and unclearly. I'm striking it above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this clarification, which I accept on a good faith basis. You must be extremely careful what you write, because statements that vilipend whole groups of editors on the basis of their nationality are completely unacceptable, especially in a WP:DIGWUREN context, and if you repeat such statements you may be sanctioned for them without further warning. I normally assume that people mean exactly what they write.  Sandstein  23:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want to see a previous discussion which is relevant here which says the same thing look here [244] and here [245]. Why not go after Kotniski here too? Why not include him in the "list"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These diffs do not show that Kotniski added or removed languages to the articles at issue here. They cannot therefore be included in the list.  Sandstein  22:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are not presented to show that Kotniski added or removed languages, but rather as a response to your threat to "take it (my hastily written statement) into account in the decision." Please address the relevant point, not a completely different point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is completly wrong: Edit-warring to add or remove a language from any one article does not necessarily reflect bias, as there may be policy-based grounds for such reverts (even if these do not excuse edit-warring). But a pattern of consistently adding or removing the same language from multiple articles cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds, since the guideline makes reference to the use of names in English-language literature, which differs from topic to topic. Such a pattern of editing, therefore, can only be explained by a desire to put nationalist bias ahead of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. This makes such a pattern incompatible with WP:NPOV and, consequently, grounds for sanctions.

Specifically: But a pattern of consistently adding or removing the same language from multiple articles cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds - no, but it can be explained by the fact that editors will add the language which they are familiar with to a topic which they are familiar with. I'd happily add relevant names to articles on Fiji but I have no idea what these may be. Such a pattern of editing, therefore, can only be explained by a desire to put nationalist bias - no, it can be explained by the fact that editors edit topics they are familiar with. This makes such a pattern incompatible with WP:NPOV - since when is AE in the business of adjudicating content disputes, which is what WP:NPOV involves? To quote Sandstein himself: compliance with this guideline is a content issue, because it requires editorial judgment, and cannot therefore be reviewed in an arbitration context.

The above statement appears to be nothing but an attempt to find a flimsy excuse to sanction people who did nothing wrong. It is railroading plain and simple.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add in light of Sandstein's insinuation of "nationalist editing I should also add that in the past I have

1. defended User:HerkusMonte's addition of German names to Polish articles (within reason) (placeholder for diff here - gimme time to find it, wasting more of my time), and have done so recently at the naming conventions discussion [246] and elsewhere. I've generally have had an amicable relationship with Herkus (at least I think so) so why not ask HIM if he regards my revert of him as good faithed or as sanction-worthy? He's certainly not the person who brought this whole mess to AE. If he's not complaining why are YOU including it here?
2. Added Yiddish names to Poland and Lithuania related articles
3. Added Lithuanian names to Polish related articles.

Thus, Sandstein's charge/insinuation of "nationalist bias" is highly inflammatory, insulting, and essentially a personal attack. None of the provided diffs substantiate it and it is exactly the kind of statement that he himself regularly tries to sanction other editors for. Since the same rules apply to Sandstein in this respect as they do to other editors, I ask him to strike that portion of his statement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Whether your edits (like those of the other editors) reflect nationalist bias is a matter under investigation in this request. My concern in this respect, above, was accompanied by a relevant diff. If you disagree with the eventual outcome of the request you can appeal against it. Assumptions of bad faith are unlikely to help your case.  Sandstein  22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no evidence provided of "nationalist bias" so far and you should not make such charges against editors without substantiating them FIRST. Not a "they might or might not be substantiated later". You do sanction others exactly for such behavior hence you should not engage in it yourself. I am not assuming bad faith. I do question your judgment however.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Deacon

Your comments at the naming conventions discussion did indeed imply that. But the point here is that after they were made Jacurek STOPPED adding names to the articles since it became clear that the policy itself was under dispute. His subsequent edits which are being dredged up here as "evidence" are completely in line with your view of the matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ed Johnston's comments (copied from his talk) [247] This ban would be applied to all editors listed below who have previously been sanctioned under any Eastern European cases - Ed, can you please explain to me why you are including me in this group? It appears you are doing so only because Sandstein included me there. But if you actually look at the list and read the comments, then you will notice that out of the six articles listed by Sandstein, two I've never edited in my life, and on the other four I made a single edit, sometimes long time ago (I have over 20k edits, I've even forgotten some of these) and when I was reverted, I ceased making any further edits.

There's no way that making a single edit on an article can be in any way construed as "edit warring" or anything else. I have also supported the inclusion of German names in Polish articles (within reason), and have added Lithuanian names to Polish articles [248] as well as Yiddish and Hebrew names to Polish articles (like I said, I got over 20k edits and I'm not going to waste my time going back and looking for the odd diff or so, but they're there). I've consistently applied WP:NCGN policy, regardless of the places involved. Of course I've mostly edited Poland related articles - I don't speak Portuguese, Yoruba or Nahuatl! At no point have I edit warred and in fact I asked for third opinion and discussed things on talk, and am currently in process of working on naming conventions guideline [249] in order to sort out this mess. Can you explain at all what would justify your proposal to sanction me?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Sandstein and Deacon's discussion of BRD

• Deacon: Why should anyone be punished for following it (BRD)? - yes, exactly.
• Sandstein: WP:BRD involves stopping after a single revert. - yes, exactly. And that is precisely what I did. In each of these cases I ceased editing the relevant article as soon as I got reverted.
• Deacon: BRD means that if you are bold, and you get reverted ... you discuss it. - did that too. Asked for third opinion, discussed things on talk, without making any further edits to the articles themselves
• Deacon: It doesn't mean that if you revert a controversial edit you have to simply accept the edit if the other editor or a friend just doesn't feel like respecting BRD himself. - this is true and in fact allows for more reverts then I actually made, provided discussion is under way. I, in fact, did "accept the edit" and made no further changes to the articles.

The parts I disagree with:

• Deacon: The editors placing the alternate names ..., know their edits will be opposed but apparently think it worth the fight. - No. The editors placing in the names are simply following policy at WP:NCGN. Now, you might disagree with the policy as she is written, but that's why we're having a discussion about it at present. It is the editors who are removing the names that are acting against policy and being disruptive.

Likewise

• Deacon: we should be predisposed to be sceptical towards the addition of these names, which in practice is usually nothing more than nationalist scent-marking; inserting them in knowledge of their controversy is the behaviour that is disruptive and violates our conduct policies; removing such inclusions follows our conduct policies. - Maybe we should be skeptical, but then that should be in the policy itself. As I said at the discussion repeatedly my main concern is that the situation is not treated consistently. There's no edit wars on insertion of German names into Polish places (sometimes extremely small villages) and that's supposed to be fine. Same for insertion of Lithuanian names into Polish places. But if a Polish name (or for that matter Belorussian) gets put into a Lithuanian place the three editors mentioned above (Dr. Dan, Lokyz and MK) converge on the article and edit war to keep it removed and all hell breaks loose. If we're going to be skeptical in one case, we need to be skeptical in other cases as well. Otherwise you're singling out a particular group/country for special treatment (whether good or bad) and that can't be justified, either on policy or ethical grounds.

Additionally, saying that inserting names is nothing "more than nationalist scent-marking" is an unverifiable assertion (since you can't observe people's motives) and is potentially offensive to boot. Are these edits [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262] [263] [264] (population 404), [265], [266] (population 282), [267] (population 27!!!), [268], [269], [270] (population 273), [271] (population 13!!!!!!!), [272], [273], [274] (population 16!!!), [275], [276], [277] (huge metropolis, population 280), [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], [284], [285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292], [293], [294], [295], [296], [297], [298], [299], [300], [301], [302], [303], [304], [305], [306], [307], [308], [309], [310], [311], [312], [313], [314], [315], [316], [317], [318], [319], [320], [321], [322], [323], [324] "nationalist scent-marking"? And that's just since March 1st!

Jacurek didn't do anything more than what Herkus is doing. He just had the misfortune of running into Dr. Dan, Lokyz and MK. He shouldn't be punished for that. And let's have Sandstein apply his own words, quote: " But a pattern of consistently adding or removing the same language from multiple articles cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds". Whose more consistently adding the same language to multiple articles? Herkus? Or Jacurek, who also added German names to Polish places, Lithuanian names to Polish places, etc.. Again, I don't think Herkus is doing anything wrong here, but neither is Jacurek.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These diffs are by another user, HerkusMonte (talk · contribs). That user is not involved in the edit wars that are at issue in this request, and so their edits are not reviewed here. They can be made the subject of a separate AE request if they are believed to be sanctionable.

For the benefit of anybody reading this, I believe the discussion alluded to above is this one (permalink). It explains why, in my view, an editor is also engaged in (and therefore sanctionable for) edit-warring if they contribute a single revert to an edit war that is otherwise carried on mainly by others.  Sandstein  18:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are by another user who is not subject of this report but they are illustrative of the situation. For one thing they clearly show that your own condition that a pattern of consistently adding or removing the same language from multiple articles cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds - does not apply to Jacurek, neither in relative or absolute terms.

And the reason why the above edits are not subject to an AE report are that

1. the point is that Herkus wasn't doing anything wrong and neither was Jacurek. Since I don't think Herkus is doing anything wrong, why in the world would I want to file an AE report on him? I'm basically saying "editor A is not at fault - for comparison see editor B who does the same thing and is also not at fault". And Sandstein replies with "you can take editor B to court if you want to" - what's the logic here?
2. the reason Herkus didn't get into any edit wars is simply because he didn't have to contend with a "Dr. Dan" or a "Lokyz" or a "MK" (he does revert when reverted). But that's neither Herkus' nor Jacurek's fault. If somebody DID actually go and remove those massive name additions, what do you think would have happened? People shouldn't be punished for being reasonable.
3. Future Perfect at Sunrise for some reason decided to single out and pick on Jacurek.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Piotrus[edit]

I am rather disappointed by FPS here.

First, I'd like to ask: who gave you those diffs and requested that you post to AE on their behalf? It's not like you have edited any of the articles in question, nor have you been a participant to any talk page discussions, as far as I am aware.

Second, I really hoped that the established editors with no axes to grind, in particular, respected admins (and I do respect FPS), would not use the "specter of EEML" poisoning the well argument. Instead of concentrating on editors who are creating the battleground through baiting and incivility (see VM post above), let's just go for the good, old EEML members, because, well, they are EEML, hence evil, hence the source of all problems, right? Somebody is being incivil to them? They surely deserved it. There is an edit war? Surely, they are the only guilty party.

Third, Jacurek has not violated any policy. Has 3RR been violated, even once? No. Has CIV been violated, even once? No. Regarding [325], this edit is in line with WP:NCGN, and the implication of this for Gdansk rule need to be discussed; I recently raised this on talk there. As things stand, however, NCGN explicitly suggests moving of alt. names from lead to a dedicated section and states they should not be restored, and Jacurek was acting within NCGN to the letter (now, I started a discussion on talk to discuss whether this letter is correct and benefits Wikipedia, but this is hardly an AE issue). Lastly, yes, there has been a slow edit war at some articles, but in most if not all cases, Jacurek is enforcing NCGN, where other editors, propagating battleground and disruption, are attempting to go against policies on those articles. NCGN supports foreign name in articles as long as they are significant (and NCGN has nice, simple check for significance - 10% of English google sources). On Cathedral Square, Vilnius (talk) I've shown NCGN applies, yet Jacurek's opponents have not bothered to discuss it - they just revert him. Ditto for Bernardine Cemetery. Nobody has done an analysis for St. Anne's Church, Vilnius, but I expect NCGN applies as well. On two other articles, in Vilnius University the nameing section was just expanded enough to warrant an end to inclusion of the name in lead. I'd have to look at Suvalkija more closely. Ukrainische Hilfspolizei seems totally unrelated to that and I'll have to review it more closely again.

Bottom line, Jacurek seems not to have violated any policies, most of his reverts are policy-supported (whereas most of those by his opponents are not), so how about the admins here focus on incivil, baiting editors and give the rest of us some breathing ground?

All that said, 1RR for everyone would be a good voluntary rule to declare. I hereby do so for my self, for the next month on all naming-affected articles, and I would strongly suggest everyone else follows suit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responce to FSP: Thank you for clarifying my question, and I apologize if the tone was too aggressive. I would still appreciate an explanation why you singled Jacurek for the report.

Comments for Sandstein and EdJohnston: I appreciate that you are willing to look further than just one side of the conflict. I would appreciate if you could tell me why did you decide to include Volunteer Marek in your analysis, with his 4 reverts total, each on a separate article, compared to Jacurek (19 reverts), MK (12 reverts), Dr Dan (14 reverts) and Lokyz (16 reverts). The last time I check, adhering to 1RR and BRD was the right thing to do... Wikipedia:Edit warring explicitly notes the need for repetetive reverts, so I am having trouble seeing why a user adhering to 1RR (or, even more clearly, making a single revert to an article in the space of many weeks or months) can be included in a discussion of edit warring. I also note that two of his reverts you cite specifically mention no responses for days or longer to discussion on talk. I would also appreciate clarification whether an editor reverting following a policy like NCGN and another reverting against it are to be treated as "equal"? Lastly, I would like to ask if you will be looking at incivility (which I think is at least as problematic as reverts), or just reverts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy interpretation question at WP:EW: I raised a question related to interpretation of EW/BRD here. I would suggest that admins hold of on applying sanctions to VM till consensus is reached on that particular interpretation (this does not concern sanctions against other editors, IMHO). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Kotniski[edit]

Echoing most of what Piotrus says, I note that this issue will never be sorted out by applying unilateral sanctions against a randomly chosen editor or two on one side of the debate. It's been going on for years; somehow those who consistently remove non-Lithuanian names from Lithuania-related articles seem to be exempted from any kind of rebuke or sanction (which of course in no way justifies the pointy removal of non-Polish names from Poland-related articles) - but in any case, it's necessary to resolve the underlying issues, through some kind of mediation or preferably involvement from the community at large, to work out the best ways to present this kind of important information to readers without being dictated to by those on various sides who are clearly driven mainly by irrational nationalist sentiment. --Kotniski (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AE is not really equipped procedurally for broad reviews covering many editors and their whole editing history. That would need a request for an arbitration case. But I suspect that after WP:DIGWUREN and WP:EEML the Committee is so fed up with this whole ensemble of editors and their obscure historical grievances that it would just indef topic-ban them all and throw away the key. And I suspect that we are coming to a point at AE where we'll come to the same conclusion eventually, one editor at a time.  Sandstein  16:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that we need to stop focusing on editors and their "editing history" (whether one, two or many) and address the substantial issues of disagreement. You're right that AE (and indeed ArbCom generally) is not equipped procedurally for anything except the same old types of editor-focused action which are already known not to work; which is why we need to start thinking outside the AE box here.--Kotniski (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if people are trying to reach some new agreement at the geographical names guideline, that's great and I'm all for it. But Jacurek's editing was not directed towards creating such an agreement. He was just edit-warring. His talk page contributions are few, and all seem to be focussed merely on asserting his own position, which is rather overtly of the type "treat geographical names as symbolic badges of recognition of historical national claims of possesion". And it is precisely this mentality that is the problem here. Whatever eventual solution there may be for these questions, Jacurek's editing has been persistently part not of the solution but of the problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not true. I was just discussing the issue trying to reach agreement here [[326]] for example and on countess other talk pages. I was adding alternative names in various languages, your accusation of me trying to claim a "national possession" is ABSOLUTELY not true. FP - Can you please wait for my statement before posting more accusations? I should find some time this weekend to respond.--Jacurek (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FP, as I said earlier, I do respect you, and I think you are partially right here. Jacurek was doing quite a few reverts. However, as I, VM and he himself pointed out, 1) he was not alone and 2) most if not all of his edits were in line with the policies (unlike those of his opponents). I wish he had used the talk more and reverted less, but he is less guilty than many others, and unlike some, he has been civil, and he has been following the NCGN policy more often then not. I don't understand why you have singled him out in this report? Saying this, I'd also strongly urge Jacurek to follow my advice and declare that he will voluntarily restrict himself to 1RR on articles with disputed naming (and I urge others to follow mine and hopefully, his suit in this). I'd also suggest that the admins here try to be more creative than blocks and topic bans (lot of good have they done in the past, as we can see) and instead impose a bunch of 1RR restriction on a number of editors who focus on reverting (1RR restriction is the correct scalpel-level solution for revert warring, although I know that some people prefer to nuke anything nail shaped instead...I hope this mentality will not be seen in this discussion). For those who promise to voluntarily restrain themselves but are later shown they didn't keep the word, I'd of course suggest harsher penalties in the future (community patience is not unlimited). I will end by saying that if the outcome of this AE will be punishing only one of the edit warring editors, and at that one who was mostly in line with NCGN and who was, unlike some of the others, civil, it will send a pretty bad message out. It would also be nice if people would stop dredging the "EEML specter", poisoning the well with "if an involved editor was a party to the EEML case, 100% of the problem lies with him" argument (intentionally or not, this is the effect I am seeing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with voluntarily restricting myself to 1RR on articles with disputed naming, please consider this comment as my commitment. However my commitment alone will not eliminate the problem of removal by few Lithuanian editors all Polish names from the articles that share common Polish-Lithuanian heritage. There is hope that this amazingly constructive discussion that is going on here [327] will result in new rules being drafted and the issue will be resolved. --Jacurek (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually most of bigger Lithuanian cities have Polish names in the name section be it Vilnius, Kaunas or Biržai, as does Vilnius University, and it is according to the WP:NCGN section that suggests the names not to be returend to lead after such section is created. It was an agreement that was reached, and that was and still is violated by an editor who has opinion of his own. So there is no conspiracy to remove one nation names from other nations cities articles, as one is trying to persuade others.--Lokyz (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lokyz, you kept removing Polish names from the articles given by you as examples and all others summarizing your reverts with "what's the Polish etymology of the name?"[328]which shows that the problem for you was not the place where alternative names should be included but existence of the Polish name itself. The name section has been created later because of the pressure applied by several editors. --Jacurek (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and it is according to the WP:NCGN section that suggests the names not to be returend to lead after such section is createdObviously this is not a view shared by all editors as seen here where a German editor returns the Germanized name of a Polish city to the lead[329], this needs to be clarified. Personally I support the view, to remove names from lead, but if this is not accepted than there should be no double standards.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to remind Jacurek, taht on Talk:Biržai there was a discusssion, which finaly led to solution and compromise suitable for many users and many towns. I do also see a difference between a "Name" and translation of the object's description like it was noted on Talk:Bernardine Cemetery, and after this discussion the article remained stable for a long time, so I was thinking the compromise was reached.--Lokyz (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Hodja Nasreddin[edit]

I followed several AE cases to understand what must be done by someone who wants to edit conflict-free, especially in the area of discretionary sanctions. Surprisingly, this boils down to a very simple rule: do not edit war under any circumstances. Even if you revert once a week, someone will bring you to AE. It goes like that: no reverts -> no conflicts -> no sanctions. This apply to all sides and almost all AE cases.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim[edit]

Don't understand why my comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) were mentioned. In the comments Volunteer Marek/Radek was referring to, I expressed my opinion that we ought to be weighted against having alternate culture names in leads (in order to avoid nationalist wars). As it appears this AE request was brought against Jakurek for going around inserting such names into leads, I'm very confused as to why my comments are claimed to support his case? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punishing users for following BRD ... good idea?

Add: As I and others have argued at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) , we should be predisposed to be sceptical towards the addition of these names, which in practice is usually nothing more than nationalist scent-marking; inserting them in knowledge of their controversy is the behaviour that is disruptive and violates our conduct policies; removing such inclusions follows our conduct policies. I'm concerned about the level of actions being taken against certain users merely because, over a few years, they've reverted inclusion of alternate language versions of place-names. As placing these names (and indeed removing stable ones) is inherently controversial in these area, why does WP:BRD not apply? Why should anyone be punished for following it? I also find the idea that you can get sanction for some reverts of various warring IPs over a couple of years quite ghastly. This is simply punishing users for having an account: not a good idea. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD involves stopping after a single revert. The names at issue have been added and removed more than once. Also, edit-warring is forbidden no matter whether one reverts IPs or users with an account.  Sandstein  16:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BRD means that if you are bold, and you get reverted ... you discuss it. It doesn't mean that if you revert a controversial edit you have to simply accept the edit if the other editor or a friend just doesn't feel like respecting BRD himself. The editors placing the alternate names, esp. in the last few years (the Piotrus 1 extends amnesty to edits preceding the case), know their edits will be opposed but apparently think it worth the fight. This is the disruptive behavior. Whether or not the disruptive behaviour causes an edit war depends on whether or the inserting users fight to keep their controversial edit; reverting any reverts of a controversial edit is the only way other users can practically adhere to the spirit of BRD. The way to solve this is not by punishing the users who are reacting to the controversial edits via BRD, but by adjusting our tolerance of such controversial edits in the first place. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, I am in (rough) agreement with Deacon here. At least one proposed sanction (on VM, who made no more than 1 revert to each article in question, and participated extensively in talk discussions) seems to say that "following BRD can still get you in trouble". Is this really a message we want to send to the community? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mymolobaccount[edit]

Proposing topic bans to all editors who are actively working on solving the naming dispute so they won't be able to achieve solution to the issue? That's wikipedia at its finest. Sandstein's behaviour here and proposals are one of the most counterproductive to Wikipedia and cooperation between editors from opposed POV's that I have seen. Two opposite sites are sitting down to talk and solve the issue, Sandstein comes in and proposes to ban active participants instead of letting them work out a solution on which they are working in good faith and in civil manner. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Vecrumba[edit]

For the most part I have pretty good relations with editor on both sides of the fence, generally being "pro-" both sides. I would be happy to assist in mediating, anything is better than more draconian measures which breed nothing but bad blood. Unless someone proposing any solution is intimately aware of the historical conflicts underlying naming disputes, any action they take (hello admins!) will make things worse, not better. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe these are excessive sanctions. If they edit warred over naming conventions, they should be either placed on 1RR per week restriction or banned from editing names. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by M.K.[edit]

• Diffs which supposedly should show my “nationalistic” revert warring with IP from 2008-2009 time frame lacks background. That IP is full time abusive revert warrior, I complained about abusive nature of that IP and his various IPs farm one, two, three times. Community offered little interest in those cases during that time, but surprise surprise Radeksz aka Volunteer Marek was the first who attacked me back then [330]. The same IP range reappearing in those articles again now [331] of course supporting EEML group as usual. Of cause none of current admins looking into these IP again.
• From relevant time frame I made two reverts with 10 hour time gap on the listed article. I'm surprised that it could cause offense and I am sorry for that and whatever damage you think this might caused. I was frustrated that community is not willing to help nor do they care about, as I saw the case with disruptive IP case or the EEML case itself, when one of the most notorious groups are enabled to operate in old habits again as if EEML revelation never happened. For instance:

user: Volunteer Marek constantly stalking editors again:

• the first ever edit on the mains pace and revert of his old opponent
• the first ever edit on the article main space and of course a revert of his old opponent
• his first edit ever on the main space article and of course a revert of my edit
• repapering from the 5 hour break and the first job is to revert me and so on… And again for some reason no action on this individual regarding these continues stalking. Question Why?
• Additionally those edits supply growing conclusion that Volunteer Marek mislead arbcom with topic ban lifting. Volunteer Marek claimed "was unable to assess and improve articles which tangentially might have to do with Eastern Europe and Poland - for example article on the famous Polish economist Michal Kalecki", "if any disputes arise in the future, I will be careful to observe high standards of conduct", "Somebody's got to make a show of good faith however", "it shouldn't be controversial", so Arbcom lifted saying "With the understanding that any relapse is likely to be poorly received."[332]. Volunteer Marek just went back to EEML agenda threating Wikipedia as battleground again.
• On sanctions:
  • Conventional sanctions would yield little result as those individuals may recruit sockpuptes or proxies as they did in the past, as we have grim examples [333] (yet main Jacurek account is still free).
  • Volunteer Marek, jacurek promised countless times to behave and they failed to keep up their promises.
  • Imposing name ban - as advocated here too - on remaining Lithuanian editors alongside with those individuals will be in line with their long desired result because they outnumber everyone. When last revert sanctions were proposed Piotrus recommended on EEML too that single-purpose socks should take care of reverting.M.K. (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• P.S. please allow additional 24 h for finalizing my report as I am terribly busy. M.K. (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG[edit]

I would recomment to admins to err on the side of caution. If there are clear and persistent patterns of disruption (e.g. edit warring), sanctions may be called for. However without a persistent pattern, a warning is enough. Also if disruption is caused in a very niche area like this naming saga, sanctions should only apply to this activity. Topic banning editors for niche violations is throwing productive editors with the bathwater.

I would also suggest that admins give a strong warning to all involved editors NOT to use the AE page as a battleground. - BorisG (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that uninvolved perspective. The sooner AE is closed down as a forum for content control—specifically, not entertaining charges of disruption unless there are clear and repeated violations of 3RR, sockpuppetry, et al.—the sooner editors will be forced to deal with each other. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One area where I would sanction draconian measures is perma-banning anyone who sockpuppets in an area of conflict. There's no excuse for that. Unfortunately, in the Wikiworld, that would only result in immediate charges of sockpuppetry, for example, where multiple editors might attend the same university. The moral is, the more draconian the enforcement, the larger the carrot being held out to those seeking to control content. For now, those editors control content the most effectively who have mastered the art of the unintended consequences of enforcement. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Novickas[edit]

I'm really sorry to see that we haven't been working towards compromise and consensus on the alternate names issue. Not surprised; there's a lot of long-standing bad blood. But I think the problem would be better addressed by more discussion at the guideline pages and more participation by outsiders at the individual articles. (I don't think they need to be experts in the area.) I'd rather see a 1RR per week/per editor for renaming (in Sandstein's intepretation of renaming) at all Eastern European articles. Because the admins here will be wanting to keep clear of voicing their opinions at these articles, could we agree on a separate venue to discuss them? Pick some previously-uninvolved editor out of the pool of mediators, say? Novickas (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jacurek[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I encourage editors to make only comments directly pertinent to the request, because "the usual infighting, bickering and sniping", as Volunteer Marek puts it, is likely to WP:BOOMERANG in the form of sanctions. Fut. Perf., I agree that the request looks actionable at first glance, but without a WP:DIGWUREN notification diff, we are forbidden to act on it.  Sandstein  14:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacurek has been sanctioned (and, through each sanction, obviously, also warned) under DIGWUREN half a dozen times. Just look at the log. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we still need a diff of a valid warning for the record. This should do, and I recommend that you complete the request with it.  Sandstein  16:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this will do, and, with all due respect, demanding that I also paste it somewhere up there now that you've already seen it is taking bureaucratic process-wonkery to an unprecedented extreme. No, I won't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as a preliminary opinion, I think that there is actionable evidence that several editors have engaged in edit-warring to remove or add names from the leads of the articles named by Fut.Perf. and Jacurek, as can be seen in the history of e.g. Bernardine Cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I suggest that we compile a consolidated list of reverts by editor and decide on that basis whether to sanction anybody, after requesting the involved editors to comment. If not other admin disagrees, I'm going to start compiling such a list.  Sandstein  06:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that any campaigns of mass removal or mass addition of alternate-language names should be looked into. Sandstein's idea of making a consolidated list of reverts sounds good. EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the list below; all admins are welcome to help complement it. We should try to cover all previously EE-warned editors and recent edit wars.  Sandstein  19:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before we start discussing sanctions against individuals, I submit the following principles for administrator discussion:

• Whether the reverts complied with the applicable naming guidelines is irrelevant, as such edits are not exempt from WP:EW. Also, compliance with this guideline is a content issue, because it requires editorial judgment, and cannot therefore be reviewed in an arbitration context.
• Reverts from earlier years are relevant insofar as they are part of a continued edit war involving the same editors, or as part of a pattern of adding or removing the same language (see below).
• Edit-warring to add or remove a language from any one article does not necessarily reflect bias, as there may be policy-based grounds for such reverts (even if these do not excuse edit-warring). But a pattern of consistently adding or removing the same language from multiple articles cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds, since the guideline makes reference to the use of names in English-language literature, which differs from topic to topic. Such a pattern of editing, therefore, can only be explained by a desire to put nationalist bias ahead of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. This makes such a pattern incompatible with WP:NPOV and, consequently, grounds for sanctions.  Sandstein  21:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further admin comments about the Result concerning Jacurek[edit]

• I've made a new sub-heading to clarify that this is where admin comments can continue. Move this section below if you prefer. I'm glad Sandstein has collected the evidence on these articles because it helps narrow the issue. I see that other participants have also been notified, and we await their responses. Among the possible actions we might take, we could consider a ban on adding or removing any alternate names for articles. This ban would be applied to all editors listed below who have previously been sanctioned under any Eastern European cases. This would mean renaming bans for all the editors below except M.K., who could be notified of the discretionary sanctions and warned. Banned editors could still argue on the talk pages for changing the alternate names.

• This assumes that the discussion here reaches a conclusion on which of these changes in alternate names exceed the limits of good-faith editing. Sandstein's argument is that consistent changes to promote the same ethnicity are usually in bad faith. I see the logic of that, especially for people who were previously sanctioned. (These aren't newcomers who are unfamiliar with our customs). EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A renaming ban is a good idea for (at least some of) the editors discussed here. But I'm not convinced it that it is sensible to extend it to all editors under EE sanctions. We have no evidence that this is a widespread problem in this topic area (although I wouldn't be surprised if it were) or with most previously sanctioned editors.  Sandstein  21:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My proposal is to consider a renaming ban only for the editors named in your table below who are also under EE sanctions. Perusal of the dates of these reverts of the alternate names shows that a good number of the reverts have occurred since 1 March. If there is a recent upsurge, and if the editors below are the main ones doing the reverting, that is a reason why they should come to our attention. It distinguishes them from the other sanctioned EE editors. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I agree; I misread you. I'm proposing an editor-by-editor analysis and sanctions below, based on the principles submitted above and the evidence collected below.

• Jacurek has engaged in nationalist edit-warring about names, violating WP:EW and WP:NPOV. He has a very long history of EE sanctions, up to a 6 months topic ban, so his "last chance" moment has already passed. Proposed sanction: indefinite EE topic ban.
• Volunteer Marek has made individual reverts in support of and in conjunction with Jacurek's nationalist edit-warring about names. He has a moderate history of EE sanctions, and notably a past sanction for covert coordination of edits with Jacurek (WP:EEML#Radeksz). Proposed sanction: six months renaming ban as described below; warning for expressing what sounds like nationalist prejudice on this page ("Polish editors, unlike Lithuanian ones, actually follow policy").
• M.K has participated in nationalist edit-warring about names. They have not previously been warned about arbitration sanctions, so none can be imposed here. Proposed consequence: warning.
• Dr. Dan has participated in nationalist edit-warring about names. He has also made mild personal attacks ("trolling", "trolling"). He has a moderate history of EE sanctions. Proposed sanctions: indefinite renaming ban, three months topic ban.
• Lokyz has participated in nationalist edit-warring about names. He has also made slightly more serious personal attacks ("ex-admin RPG player", "Dyslexic"). He has a limited history of EE sanctions. Proposed sanctions: indefinite renaming ban, three months topic ban.

A renaming ban mans that the editor is banned from changing, removing or adding names (including translations) in a Eastern European language with respect to a subject that the same article already designates with a name in another Eastern European language. This notably also covers anything that appears as part of the article (such as categories, images or templates), and moving pages. For the purpose of this ban, "Eastern European language" includes German.  Sandstein  23:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I support all the bans you've recommended above. I suggest keeping this open for at least another 24 hours to see if more admins will comment. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the principles and sanctions proposed above have not been opposed by an administrator after two and a half days; that no other administrator (or uninvolved user) has commented here a day after a request for more input at WP:AN, that I have discussed the application of WP:EW to this case in more detail at my talk page, that the arguments advanced by the users at issue (to the extent that they have made a statement at all) are unpersuasive; based on the considerations above and the evidence below, in application and enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, the sanctions proposed above are enacted. They are notified to the users and logged at WP:DIGWUREN#2011.  Sandstein  06:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name-changing reverts in the EE topic area[edit]

Jacurek[edit]

Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (warning), partially copied from the request

• On Vilnius University: 11-03-0511-03-0511-03-0911-03-09 (adding Polish)
• On St. Anne's Church, Vilnius: 11-03-0511-03-0511-03-08 (adding Polish)
• On Bernardine Cemetery: 11-03-0411-03-0711-03-08 11-03-08 (adding Polish)
• On Cathedral Square, Vilnius: 11-03-0611-03-0711-03-08 (adding Polish)
• On Suvalkija: 11-03-0503-0511-03-06 (adding Polish)
• On Gdańsk: 09-10-13 (adding German), 11-03-12 (removing German)

Previous sanctions: many blocks up to 3 months for topic-related misconduct; WP:DIGWUREN 1RR restriction (2009) and interaction ban (2010); WP:EEML#Jacurek and WP:EEML#Jacurek topic banned (6 months in Dec 2009)

Volunteer Marek[edit]

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously editing as Radeksz (warning)

• On Vilnius University: 11-03-09 (adding Polish)
• On St. Anne's Church, Vilnius: none
• On Bernardine Cemetery: 11-03-07 (adding Polish)
• On Cathedral Square, Vilnius: none
• On Suvalkija: 10-08-16 (adding Polish)
• On Gdańsk: 11-03-11 (removing German)

Previous sanctions: Three non-overturned topic-related blocks; WP:EEML#Radeksz and WP:EEML#Radeksz topic banned (rescinded in June 2010)

M.K[edit]

M.K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified) (no warning found)

• On Vilnius University: none
• On St. Anne's Church, Vilnius: 10-02-28, 10-03-04 (removing Belarusian, Polish)
• On Bernardine Cemetery: 08-04-21, 08-04-22, 08-07-19, 08-08-12, 08-08-18, 08-08-22, 08-11-05, 10-10-21, 11-03-08, 11-03-08 (removing Polish)
• On Cathedral Square, Vilnius: none
• On Suvalkija: none
• On Gdańsk: none

Previous sanctions: none

Dr. Dan[edit]

Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified) (warning)

• On Vilnius University: 06-11-06, 06-11-09, 10-08-11, 11-03-09 (removing Belorusian, Polish)
• On St. Anne's Church, Vilnius: 11-03-09 (removing Polish)
• On Bernardine Cemetery: 10-09-1010-10-06, 10-10-08, 10-10-09, 10-10-21, 10-10-21, 11-03-08, 11-03-10 (removing Polish)
• On Cathedral Square, Vilnius: 11-03-09 (removing Polish)
• On Suvalkija: none
• On Gdańsk: none

Previous sanctions: 2 incivility blocks, WP:DIGWUREN interaction ban for 3 months in 2010

Lokyz[edit]

Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified) (warning)

• On Vilnius University: 07-06-01, 11-03-05, 11-03-05, 11-03-09, 11-03-09 (removing Polish and English)
• On St. Anne's Church, Vilnius: 11-03-05, 11-03-05 (removing Polish)
• On Bernardine Cemetery: 08-09-13, 11-03-07, 11-03-07 (removing Polish)
• On Cathedral Square, Vilnius: 11-03-07, 11-03-08 (removing Polish)
• On Suvalkija: 10-08-06, 10-08-16, 11-03-05, 11-03-06 (removing Polish)
• On Gdańsk: none

Previous sanctions: One non-overturned AE block; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes#Lokyz admonished and restricted for edit-warring (2008)

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Tentontunic[edit]

User requesting enforcement

TFD (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tentontunic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/#Digwuren

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Violation of 1RR:

1. [334] 8:30, 16 March. 2011
2. [335] 23:11, 16 March, 2011
3. [336] 0:47, 17 March, 2011
4. [337] 23:51, 17 March, 2011

(2 & 3 are adding new material - 1 & 4 are deleting material.)

• Reply to T. Canens (1) 1. is re-writing the section " Western perspectives on terrorism committed by groups claiming adherence to Communist ideology/Usage of the term" and removal of a synthesis tag. 2. is new material - Tentontunic had added similar material to Mass killings under Communist regimes, and I confused the articles. 3. is insertion of text at the beginning of a section that changes the emphasis - the section originally began by saying that "Communist terrorism" was "a term used by the Nazi Party as part of a propaganda effort". It now begins "one of the features of [the Bolshevik government] was the use of terrorism". 4. is deletion of the section "Usage of the term. Tentontunic set up an RfC which is still on-going to consider changes because "no clear consensus has been reached".[338] (2) A request for clarification determined that this article comes under Eastern European articles and 1RR was imposed under Digwuren sanctions.[339] TFD (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Sandstein The article comes under "the EE topic area anyway" because EdJohnston put discretionary Digwuren sanctions on the article. This was based on a request for clarification that was agreed to by Steve Smith, Coren, Fritpoll, Vassyana, SirFozzie, KnightLago, Hersfold, Mailer diablo/A, and Rlevse.[340] I suggest that if Sandstein wants to apply sanctions against me for believing that this article should be included under Digwuren sanctions that he apply for sanctions against those arbitrators and administrators as well, just as he has complained about Dreadstar. I would also ask Sandstein whether he believes that the personal attacks by Tentontunic represent a standard of which he approves. TFD (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks on other editors:

And Jonathan is wrong, it really ought to surprise me that you would restore a BIAS tag on this article, yet on left wing terrorism you remove one within a few hours. You argue on communist terrorism to no end, you appear to be tendentious in your approach to articles which may be critical of communism in fact. Did you not just get warned for just this behavior? We have here an article, about mass killings which happened under communist regimes, it does not matter how many died under capitalism, or democracy, or the rule of the evil overlords of the mole people. What matters on this article is how many died under Communist Regimes. Tentontunic (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[341]

Then why do I require yours? Should you try and add your proposal to the article you will require consensus, just as I do. What you have written above is little more than propaganda, and an entire waste of time. You say you wish to see a NPOV article, then please try and write in a NPOV manner. Tentontunic (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[342]

I added my proposed content above today, the proposal had two editors who agreed with the inclusion, P Siebert reverted this with the edit summary, no consensus. But then proceeded to add content only he himself has agreed to. I fully intend to remove this as it is nothing more than a propaganda piece. And I should like Paul Siebert to explain why he feels justified adding content with no consensus, but removing content which at least had two people agree to and only him objecting. Tentontunic (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[343]

So what your saying is, I need consensus, and you do not? As stated, what you have written is pure propaganda, there is no other way to describe it. You have basically written "these are not communists" You have given undue weight to a fringe uncited paper, you have made an entire hash of it. It`s junk and needs to be excised, at least what I had written was mainstream and neutral. Tentontunic (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[344]

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. [345] Warning by The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
2. [346] Warning by Paul Siebert (talk · contribs) 20:03, 17 March, 2011

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block or warning

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

<Your text>

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[347]

Discussion concerning Tentontunic[edit]

Statement by Tentontunic[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Tentontunic[edit]

Upon reading the TFD's request I realised that some comments are needed, because the way TFD represented the issue is somewhat confusing, and for an uninvolved person it is almost impossible to understand the underlying conflict. I personally believe that this request is somewhat premature, however, as far as it has been filed, we have to continue with that.
This story starts with this Tentontunic proposal [348] made on Feb 26, which was an absolutely correct step from the procedural point of view.
This proposal lead to long debates, and eventually I asked Tentontunic's permission to take this text as a base and to modify it, a proposal he totally agreed with [349].
I have made some changes (considerable changes), which, in my opinion, fixed accuracy and POV issues of the proposed text [350], and from this moment the things started to develop in a wrong way.
Firstly, Tentontunic initially declared that the text is awful and requested for references [351].
My request to explain what concretely is wrong with the text was rejected [352], and I had to do some time consuming job to collect needed references to address Tentontunic's request [353].
When the needed references have been provided, Tentontunic stopped to respond.
However, immediately after the article became unprotected, he added his own (initial) version of his text into the article [354], totally ignoring my modifications, sources and arguments.
I added the modified version [355] (which, in my opinion, was quite a natural step, because by abstaining from discussion Tentontunic implicitly recognised that he had no counter-arguments), and this my edit was reverted back [356] under a pretext that there is no consensus for either proposal.
In connection to that, I have to say that Tentontunic's understanding of the consensus policy is deeply flawed, because he believes that unsupported claims like: "" It`s junk and needs to be excised, at least what I had written was mainstream and neutral" are sufficient to remove a properly referenced text from the article. I recommend to read the discussion in the Talk:Communist terrorism#Recent changes section to get a more complete impression about this story.
My conclusion is that, since Tentontunic is a relatively unexperienced user, it would be possibly premature to speak about serious sanctions, however he has to be seriously warned about the need to observe WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AE is to be used for complaints related in some way to the arbitration result for Digwren. In the case at hand, this is a case of TFD using WP as a personal battleground. His actions about Tentontunic are not based on seeking NPOV on WP, but on silencing a voice he sees as opposing his. Including but limited to a remarkable series of AfDs [357] [358] and an egregious example [359] (really - read this one as a sparkling example of WP:BATTLEGROUND!) where the only way he would have ever found the articles is by looking at Tentontunic's edit history and not by actually randomly seeking out articles in any specific group or for any specific rationale otherwise. AE requests by TFD against Tentontunic at [360], edit war complaints made at [361], SPI report made at [362] showing an ongoing battleground which, properly examined, should not be held against Tentontunic. In point of fact, while Digwuren has little to do with any of this, I suggest that whoever examines this (noting Paul's rather unique view of this, and his similar views on many pages including one where he asserted that I must hold a specifc view on pseudoscience becasue I disagree with him on whether Communist terrorism is a proper topic for WP) examine the use of noticeboards repeatedly for WP:BATTLEGROUND acts. Examples of Paul's acts in this include: [363] wherein he asserts that I was not "uninvolved" with regard to pseudoscience issues because " L2 and Collect have been extensively involved in disputes on several Communism related WP pages, such as Communist terrorism and Mass killings under Communist regimes. It is not a secret that the users working in this area frequently display more or less pronounced partisan behaviour, and, taking into account that Collect and L2 definitely belong to the opposing camps, Collect can hardly be considered as a neutral uninvolved party in a discussion about the L2 block. ... For sake of objectivity, I believe I have to explain that, since I myself also frequently participate in Communism related disputes, and since L2 and I belong to the same camp, I cannot be considered as an uninvolved party." Paul is clearly acting here as a battleground ally, and admits it as such when he improperly accused me of taking sides on a what he considered a pseudoscience issue, and where my position may be read by any arbitrator or admin. Collect (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ T. Canaens: They are not, and are not. And have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of Digwuren sanctions. Note the WP:BATTLEGROUND at play. Collect (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ T. Canaens: Re your #2. This article is under 1RR applied per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case. Frankly speaking, I have no idea why the broad Communism topic has been connected to the Eastern Europe, however, that is a decision of administrators, who seem to bee seek and tired of the constant edit war over this article. One way or the another, since all editors working in this area appeared to be restricted with 1RR per the Digwuren case, the reports of the case when this system is gamed should be filed here.
Re your #1. As I already wrote, I see no formal violation of the 1RR in this case, so this report seems somewhat premature. However, the spirit of the policy is definitely violated, because the user removed the text that was written in full accordance with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies under a laughable pretext that it is a piece of propaganda (without providing any support for that claim), and introduced another text where the same events were represented in a quite different way to push quite opposite POV. Concretely, this text [364], which was removed by Tentontunic, states that " this term ("Communist terrorism" PS) has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans during Vietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures.", and this text, which was added by him, [365] presents Vietnamese "Communist terrorism" as a broadly accepted term without any reference to its origin from the US war propaganda. This is definitely a revert, and this revert is not supported by the users, and importantly by what the sources say (see, for instance, a discussion there [366]). However, the most important thing here is that Tentontunic believes that he can revert any edit without providing serious evidences for that. That is not what the policy states, because the neutral text, which is supported by reliable sources and contains no synthesis cannot be removed simply because some users believe it is a propaganda.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sandstein. The 1RR restriction has been applied per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case. Therefore, if these sanction are in effect, then the article does have a connection with the EE topic (where the term "Eastern Europe" is defined broadly). However, if the topic has just a tangential relation to the EE issue (the point I fully agree with, unless the definition of "Eastern Europe" includes the whole Earth), then 1RR restrictions should be removed, because the Digwuren case is applicable to the EE issues only.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Volunteer Marek[edit]

This report is just another piece of evidence for the fact that WP:AE is just another weapon in the battleground toolbox, nothing more. It is the battleground, it creates battlegrounds, it makes existing battlegrounds worse, not better. You make blocks and sanctions cheap, demand for blocks and sanctions goes up. And so you get endless frivolous reports which just waste everyone's time, and embitter editors against each other.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marek, unfortunately, although the report is premature, it hardly is "frivolous". The editor refused to discuss the proposed text, removed it under a pretext that it is "propaganda" (without providing any evidences that the text written based on western scholarly articles and containing no synthesis can be a piece propaganda), and introduced his own text without any attempt to discuss it on the talk page. All these steps could be simply reverted per normal rules, however, since the article is under 1RR, this step may lead to sanctions against a user who will do that. Therefore, we simply have no choice other than to go to this page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein: Recommending closure with a warning to Tentontunic not to make invalid AE requests. - ummm, Tentontunic is not the one who made this invalid AE request. TFD did. And he might have already been warned before about making invalid AE requests (I can't remember whether this was "official warning" or just people telling him to chill out with these - I'd have to go back and look through the archives).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that I miscopied the username; that has been corrected.  Sandstein  22:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Martintg[edit]

We all seem to agree this report is premature. Looking at the diffs presented by TFD there are no reverts. The only revert I see in the edit history is the one by TFD[367]. I have to agree with the others that this report appears to be an attempt by TFD to wikilawyer a sanction via AE to get the upper hand in a content discussion, this kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND antics is just as disruptive as any real edit warring. Therefore I think WP:BOOMERANG should apply. --Martin (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tentontunic[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• Can someone explain (1) why is each of the 4 diffs supplied a revert and (2) how the revert is related to Eastern Europe? T. Canens (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming arguendo that the entire article is under a validly imposed 1RR, I'm not seeing a 1RR violation here based on those diffs. 1RR is one revert per day, not one edit per day. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The request is not very helpful because it does not show what the diffs are supposed to be reverts of. I can't see a 1RR violation at first glance. Nothing of what Tentontunic The Four Deuces writes makes this issue more clear. And like Timotheus Canens I am not sure how the article is in the EE topic area anyway. Recommending closure with a warning to Tentontunic The Four Deuces not to make invalid AE requests.  Sandstein  20:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning The Sham[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Passionless -Talk 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Sham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Remedies - Breaking 1RR and also NPOV/OR

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. [549] Revert of Cptnono's work
2. [550] Reverted my work - the first two are consecutive so they are one revert
3. [551] Reverted Golgofrinchian's revert of The Sham's revert.
4. ...

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. [552] Warning by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)-not a warning but proof he was blocked for breaking 1RR on the same article.
2. [553] Warning by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - made aware of ARBPIA.
3. ...

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Article ban, but if his behaviour continues elsewhere, quickly expand ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The Sham pretty well only edits this one article, I always though he was a sock, but his actions are poor enough to be blocked regardless of socking. The reverts were not only bad for being reverts, but also because they reintroduced POV problems, UNDUE, and made accusations as fact in wikipedias voice.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[554]

Discussion concerning The Sham[edit]

Statement by The Sham[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning The Sham[edit]

The sham continues to make edits to the concerned page without making any reply here, maybe action should be taken wihout waiting for a reply from the sham. Passionless -Talk 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Cptnono

• I came to this page after Passionless brought up labels and how to address "riots" v "protests" at AN. He was right. There was POV from both angles. And 1/rr is 1/rr.Cptnono (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning The Sham[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I'd like to hear from others before implementing anything, but I think Passionless' suggestion of an article ban might be a good idea. It would seem more effective than another short-term block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Talk page blanking and no reaction to this request (indeed little communication of any kind) is not a good sign.  Sandstein  20:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

User requesting enforcement

GainLine ♠ _♥ 17:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist#Lapsed Pacifist banned from affected articles

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. [555] <Lapsed Pacifist is topic banned from articles that relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The article is on a topic that is a forerunner to this conflict and directly related as is evidenced by the presence of the picture in this section. There are other problems with this edit as evidenced by the note on the Lapsed Pacifists talk page. There as been misuse of the the minor edit tag and the subtle changing of language to change meaning.>
2. [556] <Edit to a topic directly related to Irish Republicanism>
3. [557] <Reintroducing back into article info relating to Irish sovereignty and Partitionism. Also LP has a long history of edit warring with this editor and the edit summary I would construe to be antagonistic. This is a pattern of behaviour that concerns were raised about at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2 >
4. ...

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

(({Diffs of prior warnings))}

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Admin discretion

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For a background to topic, it may be necessary to consult with an Irish admin or one familiar with Irish history

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[558]]

Discussion concerning Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

Statement by Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

I have no problem defending those edits, but it kind of sticks in my craw, Gainline, that a sockpuppet-master like yourself with a brutal history of edit-warring and POV-pushing is the one to pull me on it. Your hypocrisy stinks. In the meantime, can anyone else advise me how to go about appealing those bans? One is ancient and the other is approaching old age quickly. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• The edits cited in the evidence violate the ban from articles relating to the conflict in Northern Ireland. In addition, there is also this edit made today to Irish Free State offensive, another such article.

  Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist#Log of blocks and bans, there have already been six blocks for violating this topic ban, most recently eight days ago. The previous blocks had a length of 24h, 48h, 1 week, 2 weeks, 48h and 48h. Considering that the topic ban violation involves edits to multiple articles, that the last block for such a violation is very recent, that the enforcement remedy provides that "After 5 blocks the maximum block [sic] shall increase to one year", and also that Lapsed Pacifist's statement does not address his ban violation but is disruptive in that it includes personal attacks as well as accusations of misconduct (sockpuppetry, POV-pushing) for which no evidence is provided and none is readily found, I am resuming the sequence of doubling the block duration that was begun with blocks 1 to 4. Consequently, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist#Lapsed Pacifist banned from affected articles, I am blocking Lapsed Pacifist for a month.

  To answer Lapsed Pacifist's question, the ban (as well as this block) can be appealed by e-mail to the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org) or (after the block expires) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment.  Sandstein  20:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

banned for six months from editing articles to change, remove or add names (including translations) in a Eastern European language with respect to a subject that the same article already designates with a name in another Eastern European language. This includes names in other pages that are displayed as part of the article, such as categories, images or templates, and it also forbids moving articles that have a name in a Eastern European language to a name in another language. For the purpose of this ban, "Eastern European language" includes German

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[559]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

This is an appeal of a sanction resulting from this enforcement request: [560]. The sanction regarding myself was enacted based on Sandstein's assessment that: Volunteer Marek has made individual reverts in support of and in conjunction with Jacurek's nationalist edit-warring about names.. The original AE request involved five articles on Polish-Lithuanian topics. These were:

1. St. Anne's Church, Vilnius
2. Cathedral Square, Vilnius
3. Suvalkija
4. Vilnius University
5. Bernardine Cemetery

• I have never edited St. Anne's Church, Vilnius and Cathedral Square, Vilnius. So obviously I did not "edit war" on these articles.

• I made one edit to Suvalkija six months ago [561] (August 16, 2010), so obviously I did not "edit war" on that article, nor can I be held responsible for the edit war among different users that took place six months later.

• That leaves Vilnius University and Bernardine Cemetery where I made a single edit on each of the articles recently.

On Vilnius University, after observing edits by User:Lokyz and User:Jacurek I posted to the talk page on March 5th, hoping to initiate discussion. My post went unanswered for four days, hence, on March 9th, I made an edit [562] in accordance with my talk page comment. I was almost immediately reverted by User:Lokyz [563], even though he had not bothered to respond to my talk page comment in the preceding four days. At that point I did not make any further edits to the article and requested a third opinon [564], as is recommended by WP:DR (Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution). Subsequently, the issue was resolved. There is no way that making a single edit, and requesting other editors' assistance through WP:3O can be considered "edit warring".

Bernardine Cemetery is an article I expanded significantly in November of 2010 (and subsequent). On March 4th, 2011, User:Jacurek added the Polish name of the place to the article [565] and he was reverted by User:Lokyz on March 7th, 2011 with the edit summary per talk. Since in my understanding the talk page discussion that took place in December did not support Lokyz's removal, I brought the matter up on the talk page [566], per WP:DR, and made a single revert of Lokyz here [567]. Note that Lokyz had not participated in any talk page discussion for the previous three months when he made his revert. Still, he immediately reverted me, literally within minutes [568]. At that point, again, I ceased editing the article and, per WP:DR focused on discussing the issue on talk.